HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-0284.Thompson.16-03-03 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#2014-0284
UNION#2014-5112-0020
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Thompson) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE Brian P. Sheehan Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION John Wardell
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER James Cheng
Treasury Board Secretariat
Centre for Employee Relations
Employee Relations Advisor
HEARING February 12, 2016
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The Employer and the Union, at the Toronto South Detention Centre, agreed to
participate in the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance with the
negotiated Protocol. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol. Suffice to say,
that the parties have agreed to a True Mediation-Arbitration process, wherein each
party provides the Vice-Chair with their submissions setting out the facts and the
authorities they would respectively rely upon. This decision is issued in accordance with
the Protocol and with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement, and it is without
prejudice or precedent.
[2] The facts in this matter are not in dispute. The grievor is a Classified Correctional
Officer employed at the Toronto South Detention Centre. She has approximately 13
years of service with the Employer.
[3] In December 2013, the grievor requested and was granted four days of unpaid
leave. The Employer, however, inadvertently paid the grievor with respect to those four
days. The total number of hours involved was 22.96 hours.
[4] The grievor brought the overpayment situation to the attention of a representative
of the Employer as soon as she became aware of the situation. Subsequently, however,
without any notice to the grievor, the full amount of the overpayment was deducted from
her January 30, 2014 pay.
[5] The Union and the grievor take no issue with the fact that there was an
overpayment, and that, the Employer was entitled to recover the relevant monies. Issue
was taken, however, with the manner in which the Employer recovered the
overpayment. Specifically, it was asserted that it was an inappropriate and
unreasonable exercise of the Employer’s right to manage as there was no effort, on the
part of the Employer, to arrange for a repayment schedule; or at a minimum, to provide
sufficient notice to the grievor that all the outstanding monies owing would be deducted
from her January 30, 2014 pay.
[6] The grievor stated that the amount of the deduction, combined with the lack of
notice, resulted in a significant financial strain for her and her family; as she
- 3 -
experienced great difficulty in managing her household expenses, including making her
mortgage payment with her biweekly pay being so drastically reduced. As a result, the
grievor claimed she experienced extreme anxiety and stress. The relief being sought is
for an award of damages for the anxiety and stress incurred.
[7] The sense of frustration and aggrievement experienced by the grievor is, at one
level, understandable. There can be little doubt that the unannounced deduction of a
sizable portion of an employee’s biweekly pay could cause some significant difficulties
for the employee, in terms of managing and satisfying his/her normal household
expenses and liabilities. The Employer, arguably, at a minimum, should have given the
grievor sufficient advance notice that the deduction would be forthcoming from her
upcoming pay. In fairness to the Employer, it is noted, however, that the time frame
between the overpayment occurring and the recouping of the monies owed was
relatively brief; as in, this was not a case of the Employer “sitting on its hands” regarding
an overpayment scenario, followed by a sudden and unexpected recouping of the
monies.
[8] At the end the day, the remedial authority of an arbitrator only arises if, in fact,
there has been a violation of the collective agreement. In the case at hand,
notwithstanding the express concern regarding a lack of notice to the grievor, there is
no basis to reach a finding that the Employer, in fact, violated the collective agreement.
There was an overpayment of wages to the grievor, and the Employer took action, in a
fairly expeditious manner, to recover those monies.
[9] Accordingly, the grievance is hereby dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 3rd day of March 2016.
Brian P. Sheehan, Vice Chair