HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-4654.Union.14-01-13 DecisionCrown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB#2012-4654
UNION# 13-08
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 1750
(Union) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Workplace Safety and Insurance Board) Employer
BEFORE Owen V. Gray Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Frederick Ho
National Representative
Canadian Union of Public Employees
FOR THE EMPLOYER Ernie Soulliere
Labour Relations Consultant
Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
HEARING January 10, 2014.
DECISION
[1] The parties are in dispute about whether an employee subpoenaed to appear as a witness in a
matter that does not arise out of his or her employment is entitled under Article 16.02 to be paid
his or her salary for the necessary period of absence. Article 16.02 reads as follows:
16.02 Jury Duty
An employee who is called for Jury Duty, subpoenaed as a witness or required in court for
matters arising out of their employment, will be paid their salary for the necessary period of
absence from work. Any payment received, excluding expenses, will be paid to the Employer.
The parties’ dispute is about whether the phrase “for matters arising out of their employment”
modifies both “subpoenaed as a witness” and “required in court,” as the employer says it does, or
only modifies “required in court,” as the union contends. The parties agree that that phrase does
not modify “called for Jury Duty.”
[2] The employer argues that if the parties had intended that the phrase “for matters arising out of
their employment” would only apply to “required in court” they would have put a comma
between the phrase “subpoenaed as a witness” and the word “or.” As the union observes, it is a
matter of debate among those concerned with such matters whether a comma (sometimes called
an “Oxford” or “serial” comma) should be used before the conjunction that appears before the
last item a list in which the preceding items are separated by commas. It is apparent that the
parties have not followed that convention consistently throughout their collective agreement.
[3] The union argues that someone “subpoenaed as a witness” is “required in court,” so the phrase
“subpoenaed as a witness” would be superfluous if the parties intended the qualification “for
matters arising out of their employment” to apply to it as well as to “required in court.” The
employer was unable to identify a circumstance to which, in its view, the phrase “subpoenaed as
a witness for matters arising out of their employment” would apply but “required in court for
matters arising out of their employment” would not.
[4] One of the guiding principles of collective agreement interpretation is that the parties should be
presumed to have intended all of the words they used to have meaning. An interpretation that
renders some of the words used in a provision superfluous is less tenable than one that does not.
- 2 -
[5] Accordingly, I find and declare that under Article 16.02 of the parties’ collective agreement an
employee “subpoenaed as a witness” is entitled to paid leave whether or not their testimony is to
be given in a matter “arising out of their employment.”
Dated at Toronto this 13th day of January, 2014.
Owen Gray, Vice-Chair