Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-2141.Ryerson.88-06-01SETTLEMENT Between : ------_ IN THE HATTER OF AN ARBLTKATION THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BAKGAINING ACT Before THE GKIEVRNCE SETTLEMENT BOAKU OPSEil (Imug Kyerson, and THE CROWN IN RIGHT OF ONTAKIO (Ministry of Transportation) Empldyer Before: ------ P. Knopf F. Taylor H. Roberts Vice-Chairman Member Member $0~ the Grievor: H. K. Wells -------------__ COUIlSel Gowling & Henderson FOK tne Employer: K.B. Cribbie -------------___ Staff Relations Advisor Human ReSOuKCeS Branch Ministry of Transportation Hearing: ------_ April 8, 19t18 Grievor DECISION This case initially concerned two grievances. The first one, dated October 2, 1987, was withdrawn with leave of the Board at the outset of the proceedings. Tine remaining grievance concerned a claim for overtime pay. The grievor, Doug Ryerson, claimed that he was improperly denied overtime pay. Mr. Ryerson is an Enforcement Officer in the position of Highway Carrier Inspector III. The job requires that he wear a uniform while on duty. His shifts begin when he r,aports to the District Headquarters and picks up a Ministry vehicle which he then drives to a Highway Inspection Station. His shift then ends when he returns the Ministry vehicle to headquarters. He works in a series of rotating shifts which cover the 24-hour operation. However, the headquarters where the vehicles are situated are only open during what, may be IooeeIY defined as business hours. When Mr. Ryerson's shifts fall wiLtin the times that the headquarters' offices are ogen, he can and does change into his uniform at the headquarters. When his shifts begin or end outside of the times the headquarters are open, he must drive to and from his home in his uniform. The Ministry has made it clear to hi.m that he is required to wear his uniform to and from the inspection stations and headquarters. Therefore, at all times when he. is on duty he must be in uniform. The Union is claiming overtime for the half hour he must be in uniform while he drives between his home and headquarters when headquarters are closed and Mr. Ryerson is required to wea,r his tiniform before the shiit begins or after it ends. The Union justified the claim by arguing that when the grievor is in uniform he is under certain obligations mwards the Ministry with regard to his conduct. The~sases Eor the SelieE that he -2- is under some strictures while in uniform are Mr. Ryerson’s own understanding of the Ministry’s expectations and a Code . of Practice for Enforcement Officars which includes a dress code and “rules” pertaining to conduct “while in uniform”. For examale, the Code provides: 6(b) Officers shall at all times respect the dignity of the Ministry, its uniform, their associates and the public. . . . . . . (-1) Officers shall not enter a liquor stora or Brewers Retail outlet to purchase beer while in uniform. (m) An Enforcement Officer shall abstain from . chewing gum or using tobacco while dealing with the public or when attending court. ~_ -. The Union argued that the most simple solution to this dispute would be to issue a key to the grievor so that he could have access to headquarters as has been done for several other employees who are not Highway Carrier. Inspectors. However, the Ministry’s evidence is that those who have been issued keys have received them for va.lid operational purposes and that security concerns preciude the issuance of any further keys to someone in the grievor’s position. In the course of the presentation of the, case, the Ministry made it clear that it did not consider someone in the grievor’s position to be “on duty” or having any responsibility to the Ministry until his shift starts with the pickup of a Ministry vehicle. As Mr. Cribbie so aptly stated, the grievor is “responsibility free” until he arrives at headquarters to pick up the vehicle. Hence the Ministry took the position that without any responsibility, the grievor could hardly claim overtime entitlement or that he was “at work” within the meaning of Article 15.2 oE the - 3 - collective agreement. However, the Ministry did indicate that it would not oppose a declaration that there are no restrictions on the grievor until he starts his shift except to the extent that he could not engage in any type of off duty conduct that would bring disrepute upon the Ministry. When specifically pressed, the Ministry clarified that it would not consider any of the conduct listed in the Rules set out above to be such “disreputable conduct” even if the Officer was in uniform, yet off duty. Once the Ministry made this position clear, counsel for the Union conceded that the grievance must fail if the grievor is indeed responsibility free and has no restrictions upon him, even if in uniform while off duty. Given the position of the parties, the Board first wishes to commend counsel for the Ministry for taking such a clear position in t!is hearing. The grievance. could easily have been successfully disputed by the Ministry without having to make any attempt to resolve the underlying concerns of the Union and .the confusion as to individual rights. However, the Ministry, through Mr. Cribbie, has gone further than is technically necessary and has heloed to resolve a long misunderstanding between the parties and in this particular grievor’s mind. The Ministry has thus used the Board’s processes to further and better the labour relations between the par ties. We wish that we could see this haopen more of ten. Thus, given the parties’ positions, we are aregared to declare that there are no restrictions on an Enforcement Officer’s off duty behaviour while in uniform, ,provided that this behaviour would not bring disrepute on the Ministry. -4- However, the grievance itself is dism ssed. DATED at Toronto, Ontario this 1st day of June, 1988. -airman a%- H--yxkF Roberts - !4amber