HomeMy WebLinkAboutSkowronski 88-07-27BETWEEN'
CAMBRIAN COLLEGE ~-/~
(hereinafter called the "Employer")
- and -
THE ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE
EMPLOYEES' UNION (For Support
Staff Employees)
(hereinafter called the "Union")
[Grievance of U. Skowronski]
BOARD OF ARBITRATION' E.E. Palmer, Q.C.
Chairman
D. Cameletti
T. J. Kearney
APPEARANCES'FOR THE COLLEGE' D.K. Gray & Others
APPEARANCES FOR THE UNION' N. Roland & Others
AWARD 2.
The present arbitration arises out of a grievance filed by
Ms. U. Skowronski on 14 January 1987, alleging that she had been imprOp-
erly placed within a particular Payband and requesting suitable relief.
This matter was not resolved during the grievance procedure and so forms
the basis of the present arbitration, a hearing in relation to which
was held in Sudbury, Ontario, on 5 May 1988. At that time the parties
agreed to the jurisdiction and composition of the present Board.
The facts in this matter were not in dispute between the
parties. Thus it appears that the present grievance arises out of
problems the parties encountered in developing a new classification
system for Support Staff. Thus, under the collective agreement in
effect for the instant grievance, such new classifications were to
come into effect on 1 June 1986. The parties were able to reach agree-
ment with respect to a large number of the new classifications~but
there were still approximately twenty-three where this agreement
existed with respect to the appropriate Payband in which they should
be paid. Accordingly, to get around difficulties that this impasse
posed, it was agreed to set up an Arbitration Board to resolve these
matters.
Although it was hoped that the award in the foregoing
matter would have been issued at an earlier date, in fact, as a result
of a settlement between the parties such an award was not issued until
December of 1986. This, of course, caused some difficulty with the
earlier-mentioned agreement that these new classifications and the
appropriate level of pay were to come into effect on ! June !986. In
part, this matter was dealt with in Paragraph 43 of the Memorandum of
Settlement that governed this process and which reads~[see Exhibit III]
43. With respect to the classifications designated
"*" on Appendix B, the Parties agree that such
classifications shall be referred to the Joint
Implementation Committee for resolution, if
possible. In so doing, the Committee may
consider possible changes to the job descriptions
used in the original rating, but if no agreement
can be reached, the original descriptions shall
stand. If no resolution can be reached, then
there shall be a one-time arbitration as follows=
(a) within 30 days of ratification, an arbitration
board shall be constituted, consisting of a
nominee of each party, and a chairman; if a
chairman cannot be agreed upon, the Minister of
Labour shall make the appointment;
(b) the arbitration board shall have jurisdiction
only to review the point ratings of the
classifications designated "*" on Appendix B, and
in so doing, shall apply the terms of the
classification Plan, including the manual,
factors, pay bands and point levels and shall
consider the classifications' Job descriptions;
the board shall issue a decision, no later than
May 1, 1986, reviewing the point ratings of such
classifications in accordance with the foregoing;
(c) the decision of the majority is the decision of
the board or, if there is no majority, the
decision of the chairman governs;
(d) the fees and expenses of the nominees shall be
paid by their nominators, respectively, and the
fees and expenses of the chairman shall be
divided between the parties equally;
(e) following the issuance of the board's decision,
the classifications designated "*" on Appendix B
shall, effective June 1, 1986, be governed by the
appropriate pay bands as determined by the
appropriate number of points as determined by the
board.
At this point it is perhaps useful to note that there"
were fourteen Paybands that were negotiated in the collective agree-
ment in question. As noted earlier, the first of these were to come
into effect on 1 June 1986. and there was to be a subsequent increase
which would come into effect on 1 September 1986. Again, in Appendix
E(i) a Classification/Payband Matrix was negotiated. This Matrix set
out all the new classifications, some of which were found in the
column headed with as asterisk. At the conclusion of the Matrix a
Note was found which reads: "NOTE- *To be governed by terms of the
Memorandum of Settlement, August 30, 1985 and in particular Item #43."
The latter is the portion of Exhibit III reproduced above. It also
might be noted that the position of Library Technician A is found
under Payband 7 while Library Technician is found under the heading
of the asterisk.
The particular problem in this case arises out of the fact. .,,
that the grievor applied for and was successful in obtaining the job
of Library Technician B as of 2 September 1986. At thi's point, the
Employer was of the view that it would be appropriate to place Ms.
Skowronski at the one'year rate of Payband 8. Subsequently, when the
Award in relation to this.matter was issued in December of that year,
the job in question was placed in Payband 9. Consequently, the College
placed Ms. Skowronski at the Start Rate of Payband 9 and paid her the ~:
difference between this and the one year rate for Payband 8 for the
period from 2 September 1986 until the time in question. It was the
position of the Union in this case, however, that upon the issuance
of the Award the appropriate level for the grievor would have been the
one year rate at Payband 9.
Be
Before turning to the argument in this matter, it is useful
to set out certain provisions of the collective agreement which the
parties used in argument. These read [see Exhibit I]:
7. WAGES
7.1 Wage Rates
The ranges of wage rates are as set out in Appendix E
hereto on the effective dates as therein provided.
7.3 Progression
Employees shall progress in accordance with the ~ncrements
set out ~n Appendix E based on their actual service ~n the
job classification. Effective June 1, 1986, employees
shall progress ~n accordance w~th the ~ncrements set out
in the pay bands as set out in Appendix E. If a classifY-
cat,on is governed by less than 5 steps ~n progression,
~t shall be governed by the rates w~th~n the appropriate
band, commencing with the h~ghest, and shall be governed
by the time sequence commencing w~th the least ~n t~me.
17.2 Promotion/Reclassification
On promotion or reclassification to a higher wage range,
an employee shall be paid the next highest rate in the
classification to which he/she is assigned, which provides
an increase of not less than the next incremental amount
available to the employee in the classification occupied
immediately prior to the promotion or reclassification.
The resultant rate shall not exceed the maximum rate of
the new classification, and except where such employee was
receiving the maximum rate, the increase shall not be less
than the incremental differential between the maximum rate
and the preceding rate in that classification.
The position of the Union can be stated rather briefly.
They argee Ms. Skowronski was promoted on 2 September 1986 and that
her pay was appropriately raised to the Payband 8 level at the one-
year rate. However, they emphasize that Exhibit VI, the agreement
regarding pay for persons in disputed classifications such as Library
Technician B, only covers persons in these classifications as of 31
May 1986. As the grievor was not covered by this provision, being
i.n another classification on the date in question, the deter-
mination of her rights on promotion were initially covered by
Article 17.2. This, it was argued, put the grievor at the
one year rate for Payband 8. At this point, the Union noted
the Memorandum of Agreement regarding the disputed classific-
ations. In the opinion of the Union the only issue in this
area was the determination of the appropriate Payband, not
the experience level within that Payband. Accordingly, later
in.the year when the decision flowing from the ~emorandum of
Agreement was issued, all that should change for Ms. Skowron-
ski was the Payband, i.e., she moves from the one-year rate
at Payband 8 to the one-year rate at Payband 9.
Accordingly, they request that this grievance
succeed.
The College opposes this interpretation. They
reviewed Article 7.1 and .3 and from these provisions draw
the conclusion that essentialy employees, when placed in a
Payband, proceed through the levels of payment by experience.
Normally, the starting rate in the Payband is determined by
the application of Article 17.2. Thus, when Ms. Skowronski
was promoted she would normally begin at the Start Rate for
the relevant Payband. In determining whether this applied
one would then look at Appendix E to determine that Payband.
Here the Payband is that'found in the column headed by an
asterisk and this, in turn, is governed by the Note reproduced
above, which leads one to the Memorandum of Settlement and
in particular, item #43. When one looks to the former provision,
the College argues that it is clear this a retroactive clause.
In short, they were faced with making a provisional decision
to deal with an interim problem at the time of Ms. Skowronski's
promotion. Upon the issuance of the award, the matter is to
be dealt with retroactively.
Therefore, the College requests this grievance be
dismissed.
We agree. On 2 September 1986 the College promoted
Ms. Skowronski from Library Technician A to Library Technician
B. At that time, to meet the requirements of Article 17.2,
it was necessary for the College to determine "the next
highest rate in the classification to which ... she [was]
assigned, which provide[d] an increase of not less than the
next incremental amount available to the [grievor] in the
classification occupied immediately prior to the promotion...",
i.e., Library Technician A. In doing so, the College would
find no rate for Library Technician B. This would drive them
to examine the Memorandum of Settlement to see what course
of action they should take. There, one must admit, the
present situation is not dealt with in explicit terms. The
wording of Paragraph 43(e), however, seems to indicate that
the course of action taken by the College is the one which
is reflective of the general intent of this Agreement.
Accordingly, it is the decision of this Board that
the .instant grievance should be dismissed.
Lynden, Ontario, this ~-~~l~f'/day
DATED
at
of
July, 1988.
Ch aW~fman
D.Cameletti
T.J.Kearne¥