HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-0747.Klonowski.89-08-16EMPLOYES DE LA CO”RONNE DEL’ONTARIO
C$XvlMlSSlON DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
DES GRIEFS
,a0 DUNDAS STREET WEST. TORONTO. ONTARIO. MSG 128 - SUlTE2lW 180, RUE D"NLMS OUEST, TORONTO, ,ONT*RIO, MSG 1.78. BUREAU 21Lw
IN THE KATTER OP AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EHPLOYEES COLLECTIVS BARGAINING ACT
Before
Between:
Before:
TEE GRISVANCE SETTLERENT BOARD
OPSEU (Rlonowski)
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Correctional Services)
For the Grievor:
For the Employer:
Bearings:
Grievor
Employer
M.V. Watters Vice-Chairperson
T. Traves Member
M. O’Toole Member
D. Bloom
Counsel
Cavalluzzo, Hayes 6 Lennon
Barristers & Solicitors
E. Anthony Regional Personnel Administrator
Ministry of Correctional Services
October 21, 1988
June 29, 1989
Tfiispmcedingarises frunthegrievanceof Mr. JohnKlommki
&ted March 10, 1987, the material part of wMch reads as follow:
Igrievethatthepastprar=ticeofpickinguppay dvrkshavebeenQniedtome.
1. Thatth?pastpracticebereinsmzEdand mintaimd.
2. z%atmymileageanda callEackunder?rticle14.1 oftheC&l~veAqsemntbe~dinfull."
AttbBcutsetofttlehearing,tbe Jzep#smtativeOftheFaq?l~
raisedapreliminaryobjectionas tothearbitrabilityof the
gK-. Hasutmittedthattheear1yissuan=e ofpayc~uasnot
a matter elnmpassed by tb? collective agLwmnt. Rather, the
Pnployer'spolicyofrele&ngslaehchequm,incertainc~~,
~iortothepaydaysinply~titutglaprivFLegeuhichcGlldrrcre
serveastbefan&tionforagrievame.Fczthiszeaeon,ittrss
sllbitted that the Board lacked jurixlicti~ to entertain the
asplaint. Inresgm3e,~Unionaquedtbattigri~~
a&itrableinthatthaiseue Ilecemrilyinvolved.iul illwqwz~of
article 2.1 of tha collective ,agmmmti&ichobligatmtheB@oy=~
paysalaq~itseupl~onareqularbi-weeklybasis~ Wewm?
ur@tocoxludethattbsquestionra.isedrelatedtothe
a&ninistz&on of the aforesaid article and therefore fell within our
1
2
matdata as set out in article 19(l) of the .QQ
. The Board's award in Crawford, 217/04 (Kmpf) uas
relisdoni.nsuFportof this suhnission.
Aftercansider~therespectivepositicmsofthepatties,the
Rxudelectedto reserveits&cisiononthepreliminaryobjection
untFlaftereviderrcehad~~~ontk~i~ofthedisFute.
Wsackqtedsuchanagmmchasitseemdthatthzentirecasecarldbs
axxAudsdonttmfirstdayof&arjng. InviewofthatliJmlilrmd,~
~distilimdtobifucatethebearinginausywhi.chwarldhave ~
OccesM -aary dalay.
Atallmaterialtims,thegrievorvarsenplqdasa~
'&ficerattheMaplehurstSCenm. Hisccmplaint-as
aaxmqmrwoftheRqlqer'srefusaltoreleasehi.schequetohim
~~tlJpaydeyi!lC ilslmma b+mLehe- scheduledtoboff-~k,
cmthapaydayaxxithedayimed.iatelypriorthereto. mepartimlar
i&&ntwhichl&toiA3instmtgr~ is illustrative. T?m
grievorwxkedtimnumberthree sNftmIMsday, AMmary 3, 1987
which erKkd at 7:oo ea. on wsdmday, FW4th. Hawassc~ed
farromjngdays offcmbothEwmaxy4thand~, w S+h,
thslatterbeingthspay&y. lb3gri.evrJrwma~dustoreturntoth2
wxkplacemtil tlmnus&ertm shiftonhridey, -6, 1987. In
view of this sct&ule, hs reqmstad by maa, dated Wxuaq 3, 1987 that
hissupervisarbe~t~eopiEkuphischequssuch~titunuldbe
3
requestwasdeniedbyMs* X.Ellison, tkePrtingAssisimt Office
Irhnager.Shainiicatsdthatthec~~dbenradeavailableto~
ontheWdmsday,ifhaininsigmdforsam.
It~the~i~r'swidencethatthisrefusaLrepresenteda
di.stixtcharqintha~loyer'spolicyofmkingpaycbqws
availableearlytieqbyeesincimumtancesas&scribedatwe.
Specifically, b statedthathebdalways previouslybeenpannittedto
collecthischequeinadvanceoftkpaydayifscheduledofffrcm~k
Onthd.dayadtbdaypricuthareto. Tbgrievortestifiedthatin
,thepast,hahadLeenabletocbtainhischequeonthemesday
lx=edhgthsRnrrsdaypayday.Ref- mami%%toanEmdatad
septentE1: 2, 1983 fmm A. J. -, superin-, al the subject of
paycheques. 1treadinpa.Tx:
megriwor qgestedthatthee@lasizedFmrticmofthemapD~
hisrecull-astotlEnatumofthempl~'spmctice.The
allegedChaIqsinthisp?ztice~ awmpnbdbyafurthermdated
Ekb&q 18, 1987 from P. A. mu, !tGuperinten&nt. It stated as
follcim
"Itmuldagqearthatthere is samconfusion concenlingpaycheques,intennsofwhentheyHlay
be issued. The follmingpAnts willre-clarify the situation for all coxemed.
2. In atder to ensure py cheques are Wt. cashed inproperly, rn cheques will be issued prior to the x2 shiftthedaybeforepayday (usually
-I*
3. Sqarvtirsmaypickuppaycwafter 14:00 hzn.us on WArmday for the #2 arxl #3 shift only. All chques nust be sigmd for then received.
. . .
9. E?C+AOMtothe&JVellb3yCdybeapprwed by the Superin~t or Eeguty Superinterdent inwrithq.
Sixffvhofeslthi.snqbeilwnNmientare encouraged to consider direct *it."
As mted, the grievor considered that this dxumsntsi~led aclear
bzakwithtb~xticeasprevimslyag@ied. Hemefoxth,hecould
mt receive his pay ci~qus before 3:00 p.m. on the Wdmsday prior to
payday. Thegriemrstatedhewastoldbymsnagm=ntPrsonnelthat
hewxldhavetDcomBinto~tocolbcthischsqueontheWbsday,
ifhebanteditbeforehisnextatterdance atthecaqlex. Intb
c-r thiswxldrequizlhntoreturntoMaplehwtoncneof
his tsa lLumdng days off. Pa subsequent requests for the early
prwisicmofpaychsquesraredE!niedtythempl~It~the
grievar'swidencethatasaresultofthenewpolicy,he~ccnpalled
onrnrmerw~ionstorehuntothe~rkplaceonadayoffinorder
toreceivehis paycheque. TheBoardwasadvisedthatthenxlndtrip
bebeen the grievor's lnnz and th facility was fifty (50) IcilaMxes
5
ard~tsuchtook~~ly~andone-half(11/2)~ofNs
tims toaxplete. %steen February, 1987 and May, 1988, there were ten
(10) instx~~ inuhichthe grievorxas scheduledoff antb Wecbsday
arriOn the Thursday payday. He testified that on d "high -ta*"
ofthosearasionshetravelledto~l~ttocollecthischeque.
ItwsMr.K1OKIWBki'sassessrnentthatheuseenti~~tocarpensati~
forbththetimeandmileage. This claim was e on a belief
thatthehplayerhed"oadered"himtoatterdtheuorkplaceif~
wisbdtoobtainhiscbqwonanygivenwednasday. !Rks grievor
~thatadirectdepositsystemwasinplacechrringthisperiod.
Hehadc@edagainstthissystem,hwzver,forreasons relating to his
w life and because of certain pr&lw that 82088 at the time of
its in-cm in the early 1980's.
Thegrievorindicatedthatthe~loyer rwertedtoitsp
F~,1987~inarabanthemonthofMay,1988. Inthis
regard, z&eeZe was msdm to a third mm dated Nay 25, 1988 franHr.
G.Ca~~~fo&,thecurrwtSqerintend&. Them!wrialpoHzionofthis
-reads:
"Ihe followilq are Iy?w -regardingissue arri pick up of pay cbquea effectis June 9, 1988.
1. SqezviaorsmaypickupclquesarrlDixect. Deposit Stub for staff wxking Yl, 2 or 3 shift after 2:30 p.m. an W&w&y prior to payday. Ali.stshculdbefo~@orto 9:00 a.m. to the office in xh%uze ta allow tiuetopJllthecheqles.Allreagining cleques may be released after 3:00 p.m. on W&ne&aypriortopayday. .Cheques pickedup yylxa visors till be signsd for on the .
t
6
. . .
.4. Reqwsts topickupci-ques prior tot-
irxiicatedinItem1skuldbedirected '
It- thegrievor's wi&xe that followingthis~, hetid
regularlyreceivehLspaychequefmmhissupervisor~le.erkingon
thenubrthesshiftonlbes&ys. Thischangeputanendtohi.sneed
toreturnto~l~tonadayoffinordertocollectsuchcheque.
Mr. JohnRobertson, 0fficeMana~atMsplehurstCo~ona.l
Cenixe,wasthesolewitr~~sfortl~E2~loyer. AsOffi.ceManagsr,Mr.
~~~ibleforthasupenrisionofstaffirnrolvedwith
payroll ard parsaMellEltters.Headvisedtllatpaychequesgenerally
arrived by courier on lbsdays tebeen 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. Q1
tMrreceipt,tbyuuldbschecbzdforzcuracy by tha payroll clerk.'
Mr.FbsrtSmFSuxiauyconfFwdthewidenceofthegrievorin
reqeztofthsprxt.icepriortiE'sbxaq, 1987. He-that
euqkyses,whowemsche&ladtobeawyfnm~konthe~~
ontl~'l%ur&ypayday,couldcollecttheirchequeon~. It-
hiswidence,~,thatthe~hadtobepickeduppersonally
andthatit~d~beissuedinthisfashicntoasupervisor. W.
lbbrtsm did di.q.ute the grievor's &Y.xuntofthechangeinpractice
inreqectoftheinterililperiaL HeaFpearedto&nytheexistexeof
auorerestrictivepra&iceinsuchpariod.Hi.scpinion,~,-
inconflictwiththe~loyer'SITeqnse tothegriwarcedatiMarch
17, 1987 in WhM. M. Erear stated; "lb this erdyou~ere advised
thatyzurpaychsckcouldnotteissueduntilMnesday after 14:00
E
7
hoursandonlybyasupemisor." Mr.Rnbrbontestifiedthatan
enployee,vitha~rksc~esimilartothat~i~bythe
grievur babeen Febmary 3 ard Febnwy 6, 1987, had NJ options for
coll~theircheque. Fi.rstly,tbycouldstayonaftetthe
cmrClusi.onof tbTWsday&lnightshiftandtit for theoffiCe to
open at 8:30 a.m. on W&mday umming, at which time they could
receivetheirpay. Abarnately,the~loyee,afterccnpletingthe
mquisite form, couldpersonallypickup the c&que cmtheTuesday.
Mr. -canceded thatheprcbablydidmtinfozmtlmgrievoras~
.totheexistmmofthesecptions. Thegrievor, inhis xeply,bnied
myawammssthatsuchaamxe ofactionwaso@ntbhim. lastly,
P
suhnittedthatinthisIegard,theElIp1oyerhadnotprqfz1ybalanced
the~cl~ofitsarpl~~itdecidedtonodifythe
practiceof releasingpayckques as hadexistedpriortoFebruary,
1987. The alternate position of the union wss that ths Ekployer was
es~frCmcha@ngthsfomzrpractice. Fortk3ereasons,~~
ashcit.oaward anpnsationtothegrievor&spitethefactthat
difficultiesmigM~twiththeassessnentof~. Elreferexewas
mads to ti Ward's brmd remdial authority urder saction 19(l) of the
. . mlovees cOlleXive~Acf ani to articles 14.1 (Call-
Back)and22(~~Rates)~hcarldbe~~edbywayof
analogy. Tim followFngau~riti~~rsliedanby~~~:
m (cited above); g!&g$& 570/84 (Samds); w, 510/82
(Rlkart3); 9 Q&xi et al., 35
O.R. (2d) 670 (Div.Ct.); Ep Rurard Yarrows w. Vm
andInQm&&&~ofPadotera.mtiU8,30
L.A.C. (2d) 331 (Chri8tie, Jum 1981).
Inxespnse,the~loyarclainedthattbegrievorhsdfailedto
establishanyviolatimof th?collective ageanmt. Inits
suhniss~,theFmplayFphadfullyccapliedwitharticle2.1byrtlakirag
thepaydreqcEamFlabletothe~i~ona~bilrseklybksis.
It~arguedthataucharticle~clearand~i~arddid~
pmvidean~l~,suchasthe~~,vithacontractualrigMto
receivetkirpay~@xtottmpyday. GiventhelackOf
~i~~,the~l~~ttedthatanyevidsnoeofpastpractice
ks8irrelemnt. Further, ita representative argued that the widerce
pxsentedrelatingtosuchpracticewas insufficient to swrtths
9
~lication of the cktrins of esiqpel. Lastly, while denyins that
article 2.1provickd for theexerciseof amrqenmtdiscretion, the.
~loyerassezTedthatith&actsdreaso~-AlythrougtcutinneMng
ciques available to its employees prior to the official pay day alhit
subjecttocealinamditions. Forthesemasms,itwassuhnitted
thatthegriewrms mt entitled toany cfxpnsation. The &@yer
relied on the follcwing awards: Mahnke, 1874/86 (Wilson); &Q, 116/78
@inton); a, 78/82 (Jolliffe).
Article 2.1 of the collective agrsemnt reads as follow:
"Thsreshallkededucted fmnthenqularbi-wzkly payofeveIyerployeeaFpointsdtotheregular staff of ttm civil service a sun in lieu of
nmkershipduesequivalenttothabi~ydwsof ttmCntarioPublicServiceB&3yeesUnion."
Asstatedabve,themanlmsen& itsdecisiononthe
pre~&jection~~raisedbytheEslplayeratths
cammmmtofthekearhg.Hsvingncwhadthe~tyto
amsidmthereqctivesutlnissions,~~ludethattheissueLaised
isarbitrsbleforthasam reasonsasgivenbytheEoad~.&%d&.
It- thre stated:
"mthepIelimFnaryisslle,theBoardhssamlsto thac0IbAusionth3tthsgrievaxe &esra.isean arbitrableissue. &+-Co- . . ~givesttx3Boadthepmerand authoritytodealwithmt~~ths hterpmQt.i.on,aFplicationardahinistraticmof thscollective agreemnt, s. 19. Ths issue raised by this griwame concerns, what, if any, abligationsareplacedqonthemployerwith reqect to the paymnt of vsgas by Article 2.1.
10
lWansmrtothiswillinvolvetheinteqretation
of Article 2.1. iwth?.r,thempl~'S
obligationswithregadto tbmthodof paymnts, tile mt specified arpbre in the collective
a~,mybeconsi&zdamtterof admmstration of the obligation to pay the wages pxescriklinthecollectiveagxwmt. lBus,the isSuera.isedintkgrievameisalsoacuxermof the admhistration of the collective agremmt."
wages 2-3)
WerecognizetbtthePawfor$awsddealtwithasan&lhatdifferent
claimthanpesentedbythgrievame ruwbeforeus. Tkre, the
griemrrmrplaimdthathamsmtreceivinghischequeonthschre
date.tJotwithstandingthefactualdiffererres, theBoaLdhasbeen
persuadedthatthejurisdictional~ingsetcutatGveisequally
applicablehthisinstarm. Spcifi.cally,usconsi&rthattheissue
ra.isedtyMr.Kl~wsimil.arlyrequires thisBoanitointerpret
article 2.1 of the collective clgreentandtodeterminewhetherthe
agzeanmthaskeen~iatelyachinistered.
It is our judgmntthatarticle 2.1ckea mtactvase tbclaimof
this grievor. Sinplypt, it&w not create arightforenplcpee to
iMistthatthqrlecaivethe~payc~Fo-iortothe~~lishedpay
date. IncrTauf&, thamardaammtedthat:
“lb collective agreEment doee mt explicitly reapizethatpaymentkersceivedbyaqecified
day. meplblicationofpaydayebylknagm@ Boardi.amtprtofthecollectiveagreemnt. It m5ycreeteanexpctationatpaydateathat enployeaSxdyupcn,htitdoesmtcmataan aboluteliabilityont.h8mlployertoensure ~cMiverytoenployeesonthatday."
11
Ifanerpl~does~haveacontractualrighttoreceivetheirpay
by a specifieddate, wa find it difficulttoundarstardkwtlm
collective agmmmtcouldbeviolatedbytheEqGq+ar'srefusalto
govids for early delivery of c&ques in a umnmr satisfactoryto the
grievor.
AsisevicbntfrantlCsamrd,the&arddidmceiveevidI?nceof
pastpractice. Havirqconsi&redthisevi&me,*sconzl&thata
practiceofpmvi.diqchquestoenployeegdidchangeinmlmmy,
1987,suEhthatthegeievor~nolongerabletoreceivs~before
leaving~l~tattheendofhisl~tshiftpre=edingthe rotating
days off. While UC. DShemau'smmdidqeaktothesubjectof
, exce@om thegrievca'sevidence,whichweaccept,msthathis
requesUmre&nid. MUionally,it&asmtagqeartoUethattb
grievor~aRprisedofthe~referredtointhatest~of~.
IwixmmLNotwithetandingthisfinding,~dodD~thatevidence
of past practice may be used in aid of interpreting article 2.1 of ths
wllectiveacJEmmt. w3agIeewiththez3ubiss~oftheBlplolrer
~t~~~ionisclearand~i~ardthatitdoegnot
FrrwideanenployeewitharigMtothereceiptofCheques~~tothe
paydate. R&tmr,itaerveatoc~teanobligatiOnq0nthe~l~
topxwidepaymenttoem@yeesbi-maklyandqularly.Thsgrievoz
didnotallegethat,thisctUgaticmhadbmnhmached.
InShecmrd,theBEudappliedthedccMneofpxunissoryes~
soastoprewntthFnployarfm~~mvertiqtoa~right~
zquireenployees ta
*ark foreightburs adayexclusiveof a paid
ImalbreaJC.m?Bcardfoundthatenployeesinthatinstance~
12
~edtorelyupon~local~~ice,andthatsuchreliance~to
theirdlsix~tinthe-thatt.heyneversoughttoprotect~ir
expe3atkmstlmxqhlariguagenegntiatedintotfrecollectiveagreaoent.
Here,~Smtpresentedwithanyevic&ceastois&nnmtor
dstrismllxlreliarre. Intheabenceofmxhevidexe,theBoatd
camutfirdthattheprerequisitesfaranestappelhaveteen
established. AewasnotadinJb?m&nl,"...,rmchlmrethanpast
~icenuStbeestablishedbeforeestoppel~applicable"(page
81. Inanyment,thebanibs&cmsdarbtsastowMAerttm
~~OfeetaFpelcouldhavebeeneffectiveinthiscaseas~
UnionwfSatte@irgtoagqlythecoxeptsoastocmaterightsnot
foluxiwithinthswllective~, whereasin~,ths
cb.Zrineu3susedtopxeventttmRql~fzcmrelyingonrigMx
acimllyfc%mdi&hintheagreenent. matis,thr3thionhashere
~tingtheeoard-~a~plythedoctrineasa~andnotashield.
InJx3ccS&theBwrduascalledupcslto-whethertha
DepltyMinisbr'srightto~ana@icationforMcatian,
plreuantto~arllcle47.7,rmesubjecttothereatrictionthat
suchpOwsrbeexemisedreamably. Itslnmarizedtheinpectofthe
le=lingauthorities inthe follcwingtznm:
I... ifSESlt’SpWWtoSlSb3~particular dscisionisfetiz%edinanywayJthsl.imitation msttefolmdintheeqreaslcmguageoftk aJllective agmmmtormstbs in@icit, blight
oftkcollxtive agrwmntasawble. Pu3zei.s
mc3actr~off-or-lensss independent of tbcollective agreenmtitself. Thecollective agreenmtisthebxgahmadebyths parties. Thzyhavedefimdtbir relationship. But not all Of thatbargainwill be exprwsly set
i
‘E
13
outinthecollectiveagreemnt. Tkremyke
term which are -licit and which will have ts be made explicit by a court or board of axzbitration called upn to interpret the collective agKE¶mlL"
(page 9)
'Ik BDard ultimately held that the specific puzr of agpmval granted
tothe~~Minister~subjecttoan~~citlimitatioll~titbe
exercisedingccdfaith,withaltdiscrimination,aJKlrntinan
arbitraryfashion. Pdditionally,itcomAu&dthat"mmapmntmst
takaintoacrruntrelevantfactorsincaningtoitsdecisionandrmst
mtbaseitscki.siononfactorsuncorwctsd withlegitimtekusiness
puposes"(pagel2). Inwjx@nt,the~t.aawmiis
distkquishableinthatitcxmemed a specific po+srof apqwal
gIamzdtotheDeprtyKini&erinthecollectFve agrsmnt.Art.icle
2.ldcesnotprwi.deforsuchexexiBeofdiscmtion.mtheCmtraIy,
it~~certaincMxt&nsfran~regularbi~ypayof
arplayses. -,thareisnoapparentpmvisiwinthecollective
agKemmt*michrelateatotheearly~ofpaycheqlms.Inthe
absareof~,~sareletocancludethatallnitatf~existson
ntanamt's rights in this aspect of its aMnisWat.ion of the
collee agmanmt.xadwsdetem&dothemim,theBoard=uldnot
havefaxldthem@oyer%zwpJnse tobeamwmmble.Thzc~in
policywhich ctccund in Ekbmary, 1987 did amtenplate an early
releaseofckquesalbeitmtasearlyaswxldhavesuitedthe
grievor. Italsop-ovicMforexcqComalthxgh,forreasonsIlat
Nlydixl~,the~i~~notableto~advantageofsane.
i‘ I
14
In~,wefindthattheUlrionhasnotestablishedabreachof
thecollecti~ vtsoas toentitletkegriemrtocapnsation.
Notwithstandingourcolrclusions,~~haveleftworderingwhythe
~loprchan@its pmctice inFebruary, 1987. Weuxldtendto
agreewithtk Unionthatthemre restrictive practice WaS likely
unrmessary given tix reversion tothe fozmr policy in May, 1988.
Ebralloftheabvemasons,tbgriRlance is denied.
Dated at Windsor, Gntario this 16th day of August , 1989.
fm,cha$ J. LJacQo
M. v. wattars, ViceQlairperson
T. Traves, Member
M. O'Toole. Member