HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-1059.Ross.89-10-16 ONTARIO EMFLOYES DE L,A COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTAttlO
GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT R~GLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
DUNDAS STREET WEST. TORONTO, ONTARrQ MSG ?Z8- SUITE 2'100 TELEPHONE/T~L~PI',IONE
RUE DUNDAS OUEST. TORONTO, (ONTARIOJ MSG iZ8- BUREAU 2100 (415J 598.0688
1059/88
IN TEE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between:
OPSEU (Ross')
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Housing)
Employer
Before:
P.M. Epstein vice-Chairperson
p. Klym Member
M. O'Toole Member
For the Grievor: P. Lukasiewicz
Counsel
Gowling, St-rathy & Henderson
Barristers & Solicitors
For the Employer: J. Baker
Counsel
Hicks Morley Hamilton
Stewart Storie
Barristers & Solicitors
Hearing: March 7, 1989
L
DECISION
The grievor grieves that she'has b~en unjustly denied benefits
since January, i984 on her long term income protection claim and
seeks reinstatement of all benefits in relation to this claim. The
benefits of the grievor, Ms. Brenda Ross, had been terminated by
the insurer'effective December 1, 1982.
The employer raised the preliminary objection that the matter
was not arbitrable and relied on the decisions of this Boar~ in
Hooey, 348/81, delivered on May 18, 1984. On application by the
Union for Judicial Review, the court unanimously affirmed the Board
decision authored by Chairman Weatherill.. That decision was also
followed, in Sekhon, another decision of'this Board, 418/83,' in
wkich the Board chaired by E.B. Joll%ffe, Q.C. adopted the decision
in Hooey. 'Mr. Lukasiewicz, counsel for the grievor, had fairly
· conceded tha{ he cannot distinguish the facts of this case from the
two previous decisions of the Board and this Board also finds that-
the facts are indistinguishable from those two. previous decisions.
As was stated in. Hooey, the collective agreement requires that
the policy of insurance be provided, but it is not itself a polYcy'
of insurance. The employer has provided an appropriate pdlicy, it
is the insurer's obligation to pay proper claims, that obligation
is enforceable at law and the grievor may well have a'direct action
~gainst the insurer to'pay the claims. However, in a case such as
this relating to claims for benefits under the policy, these are
not matters related to the interpretation, application,
administration or alleged contravention of the collective agreement
itself and are.not arbitrable.
For these reasons, the preliminary objection is sustained and
the grievance must be dismissed.
DATED at Toronto, th s 16th day of ~)~tober, I989.//~//-~
P.M. Epstein, Vice-Chairperson
P. Klym, Member
M. O'Toole, Member