Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-0030.Downey et al.90-01-03 ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTA RIO GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSION DE SETI'LEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, TORONTO. ONTARIO. MSG IZ8-SUITE 2100 TELEPHONE/T£L~PHONE ~80, RuE DUNDAS OUEST, TORONTO, (ONTARIO) MSG 1Z8 - BUREAU 2100 (416) 598-0688 30/89 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: OPSEU (Downey et al) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) Employer Beforet J.W. Samuels Vi=e-Chairperson J. McManus Member M. O'Toole Member For the Grievorz R. Wells Counsel Gowling, Strathy & Henderson Barristers & solicitors For the Employer: P. Young Counsel Winkler, Filion and Wakely Barristers & Solicitors Hearing: July 14, 1989 DECISION 2 The gfievors are survey technicians in the Central Region. They work at various job sites and have no permanent headquarters. Pursuant to Article 38 of the collective agreement, their designated headquarters are their homes or various Ministry facilities. They work from 8 AM to 5 PM. Until' September 19, 1958, they were authorized to travel to the job sites each day from their headquarters or homes, whichever were closer to the job sites, and back again, arriving at work at 8 AM and leaving from work at 5 PM. This meant that each grievor earned travel time credits each day equivalent to all the time taken to and from the job site. In September 1988, management issued a memorandum in which it explained changes which were necessary because of budgetary constraints. In particular, as of September I 9, the grievors were to travel for up to one hour to and from the job site during working hours from 8 AM to :5 PM. Thus, if the trip only took one-half hour each way, a grievor would earn no more travel time, and would be at thc job site one hour less each day. If the trip took more than one-half hour each wa),, a grievor would earn travel time credits for the time spent travelling in excess of the oue hour which was during working hours. The grievors' concern is with this latter situation. The Union claims that the Ministry cannot split the actual trip into travel time and working hours. It is argued that either the whole trip must be done in working hours, or travel time credit must be given for the whole trip. Articles 23.1 and 23.3 of the collective agreement provide: 23.1 Employees shall be credited with ali time spent in travelling outside of working hours when authorized by the ministry. 23.3 W~er~ tibet is by ~utomobi[e and the employee travels directly from his home or place of employ- ' ment, time will be credited from the assigned hour of departure until he ree~ches his destim~tion and from the assigned hour of departure from the desti- nation unti! he reaches his home or place of eml~lOy- ment. 3 In our view, the governing provision is Article 23.1. Travel time is "time spent in travelling outside of working hours" (emphasis added). Article 23.3 must be read within the context of Article 23.1. Thus, Article 23.3 raear~s that, if a trip is authorized, credit must be given for all of the trip which is outside of working hours. Article 23.3 prevents the Ministry from authorizing a trip outside of working hours artd then giving credit for only half of the time necessary to complete the trip. ct 4 The Ministry did not try to balance its budget by asking the grievors to do something for nothing. And the Ministry did not take away a right which the grievors had previously. Instead, the Ministry reduced the working time at the job sites by up to one hour each day, but kept the overall "working hours" the same as had been previously. In our view, this cost-saving measure did not violate the collective agreement. The grievors are still receiving credit for authorized time spent in travelling outside of working hours. For these reasons, the grievances are dismissed. Done at London, Ontario, this 3rd day of January, 1990. els, "I dissent" (DJ ssent attached) J. McManus, Member M. O'Toole, Member GSB No. 30/89 (Downay) DISSENT I disagree with the conclusion reached by' the majority in this case. The majority concludes that Article 23.1 of the collective agreement is the governing provision. In my view, all of Article 23 must be read together. When the Article is read in its entirety, I come to the conclusion that the grievors succeed in this case. Article 23, according to its heading, deals with "Time Credits While Traveling". Credits earned while traveling can be taken, according to Article 23.6, at the employee's basic hourly rate or "where mutually agreed, by compensating leave". In the facts, as recited by the majority, the Ministry gives "time credits" for part of the employee's travel time and "pa}-" (not convertible into compensating leave) for the balance. This the Ministry cannot do. Article 23.3 provides that travel in cases such as the one before the Board will be "credited from the assigned hour of departure until he reaches his destination" (emphasis added). It is not open to the Ministry to give "pay" for part of the trip instead of "time credits". - 2 - Article 23.1 does not assist the Ministry. In the facts recited by the majority, part of the travel time is admittedly inside of, rather than outside of, working hours. That occurs, however, only because the Ministry has failed to credit sufficient time to each employee under Article 23.3. I conclude that the Ministry can authorize travel outside of work hours, or inside of work hours. However, if the travel is authorized outside of work hours, Article 23.3 provides that time credits for the entire trip must be given. In the result I would have upheld these grievances. ! ,I '- i'/~ .... ",'...,~'...., Jori c annus