Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMcCoy 15-09-27IN  THE  MATTER  OF  AN  ARBITRATION   BETWEEN     MIDDLESEX  LONDON  EMERGENCY  MEDICAL  SERVICES  AUTHORITY       (the  “Employer”)     and     ONTARIO  PUBLIC  SERVICE  EMPLOYEES  UNION,  LOCAL  147     (the  “Union”)     GRIEVANCE  OF  ROB  McCOY   2014-­‐0147-­‐0004     SOLE  ARBITRATOR:    John  Stout     APPEARANCES:   For  the  Employer:   Stephanie  Jeronimo,  Hicks  Morley     John  Prno,  Deputy  Chief  Operations   Charles  Binns,  Student-­‐at-­‐Law     For  the  Union:   Brodie  MacRae,  Grievance  Officer   Rob  Gee,  Local  Steward   Rob  McCoy       Hearing  held  in  London,  Ontario  on  September  9,  2015    2   AWARD     [1] In  this  matter,  Rob  McCoy  (the  “Grievor”)  alleges  that  the  Employer  violated   the  Employment  Standards  Act,  2000,  S.O.  2000,  c.41  (the  ”ESA”)  by  denying  him   statutory  holiday  pay  for  Christmas  Day  2014.       [2] The  Union   and   the   Employer   are   bound   by   a   Collective   Agreement.   The   parties  agree  that  the  Grievor  did  not  qualify  for  holiday  pay  on  Christmas  Day  2014   under  the  Collective  Agreement  provisions.       [3] The  parties  acknowledge  that  the  ESA  provides  for  minimum  employment   standards.  They  also  agree  that  they  are  not  permitted  to  contract  out  or  waive  any   ESA  employment  standard.  The  parties  accept  that  if  one  or  more  provisions  of  the   Collective  Agreement  directly  relating  to  public  holidays  provide  a  greater  benefit   than  the  employment  standard,  then  the  Collective  Agreement  provisions  apply  and   the  grievance  must  be  dismissed.   [4] Accordingly,   the   only   issue   in   dispute   is   whether   or   not   the   Collective   Agreement  provides  a  greater  benefit  than  the  ESA.     [5] The   parties   proceeded   by   providing   me   with   a   copy   of   the   Collective   Agreement,   the   Grievance   and   an   Agreed   Statement   of   Facts.     Counsel   then   proceeded  directly  to  argue  the  case.         Background  Facts     [6] The  Agreed  Statement  of  Facts  provides  as  follows:   AGREED  STATEMENT  OF  FACTS   1. The  Grievor,  Robert  McCoy,  is  a  full-­‐time  Advanced  Care  Paramedic   with   the   Middlesex-­‐London   Emergency   Medical   Services   Authority    3   (“MLEMS”).   2. On  December  21,  2013  the  Grievor  was  scheduled  to  work  a  12  hour   shift  commencing  at  7  pm.    He  was  not  scheduled  to  work  again  until   Boxing  Day.   3. On  December  21,  2013,  the  Grievor’s  mother  was  a  patient  at  Arbour   Trace,   a   long   term   care   facility   for   patients   with   dementia   and   Alzheimer’s.  The  Grievor’s  mother  suffers  from  dementia.     4. At  or  around  5  pm  on  December  21,  2013,  the  Grievor  was  contacted   by  the  staff  at  Arbour  Trace  to  inform  him  that  his  mother  needed  to   be  taken  to  the  emergency  room.     5. Due  to  her  illness,  Grievor’s  mother  could  not  be  taken  by  ambulance   to  the  emergency  room,  as  she  needed  a  next  of  kin  to  accompany  her   during   the   wait   to   see   a   physician.   As   the   Grievor   was   the   only   available  next  of  kin  to  his  mother  at  that  time,  and  as  he  had  Power   of  Attorney  for  medical  for  his  mother,  he  determined  that  he  should   accompany  her  to  the  emergency  room.   6. Before  his  shift  commenced  on  December  21,  the  Grievor  called  in   and  asked  to  use  an  Personal  Emergency  Day,  in  order  to  take  his   mother   to   the   emergency   room.     The   Grievor   did   not   provide   any   further  information  to  MLEMS.       7. The   Grievor   stayed   with   his   mother   at   the   emergency   room   until   approximately  1  am.     8. Article  31  of  the  Collective  Agreement  sets  out  employee  entitlements   to  designated  holidays  and  holiday  pay.    In  order  to  be  eligible  for   holiday  pay  on  a  designated  holiday,  Article  31.05  must  be  satisfied:   To  qualify  for  designated  Holiday  pay,  a  full-­‐time  employee   must   have   worked   his   last   scheduled   shift   prior   to   the   holiday,  his  scheduled  shift  on  the  holiday,  if  any,  and  his  first   scheduled  shift  following  the  holiday,  unless  failure  to  do  so  is   caused  by  vacation  or  illness  or  injury  verified  by  a  medical   certificate.       9. As  the  Grievor  was  not  on  vacation,  sick  or  injured  and  did  not  work   his  last  scheduled  shift  on  December  21,  he  did  not  receive  holiday   pay  for  Christmas  Day  2013.    The  Union  filed  Grievance  #2014-­‐0147-­‐ 0004  in  response,  requesting  one  day’s  pay.       10. The  Grievor  worked  his  regularly  scheduled  shift  on  Boxing  Day.    4   The  relevant  provisions  of  the  Collective  Agreement  and  the  ESA   [7] The  relevant  provisions  of  the  Collective  Agreement  are  as  follows:       ARTICLE  31  DESIGNATED  HOLIDAYS   31.01  The   following   are   recognized   as   designated   holidays   for   full-­‐time   employees  only;  New  Year’s  day,  Good  Friday,  Easter  Monday,  Victoria   Day,  Canada  Day,  Civic  Day,  Labour  Day,  Thanksgiving,  Remembrance   Day,  Christmas  Day,  Boxing  Day.        In  addition,  Heritage  Day  will  be  observed  when  proclaimed  by  the   Ontario  Government  as  a  statutory  holiday.1        Commencing   in   calendar   year   2009,   there   will   be   an   annual   personalized   floating   holiday   for   full  time   employees   who   are   employed  as  of  December  31  of  the  year  immediately  preceding  such   holiday.     The   scheduling   of   this   individual   floater   shall   be   in   accordance   with   the   requirements   for   the   taking   of   any   lieu   day   holiday  under  the  Collective  Agreement.   31.02  Where  a  full-­‐time  employee  does  not  work  on  a  designated  holiday,   holiday  pay  will  be  based  on  the  employee’s  normal  hours  of  work  at   the  employee’s  basic  hourly  rate  of  pay.    i.e.  12  hour  shifts  =  12  hours   pay,  10  hour  shifts  =  10  hours  pay  and  8  hour  shifts  =  8  hours  pay.   31.03  Where  an  employee  works  on  a  holiday  included  under  article  31.01,   the   employee   shall   be   paid   at   the   rate   of   time   and   one   half   the   employee’s  basic  hourly  rate  for  all  hours  worked.    In  the  case  of  a   part-­‐time   employee,   this   payment   shall   be   in   lieu   of   entitlement   to   designated  holiday  pay.       31.04  In   addition   to   the   payment   provided   by   article   31.03,   a   full  time   employee  who  works  on  a  designated  holiday  and  is  eligible  to  receive   designated   holiday   pay   shall   receive   either   his   or   her   designated   holiday  pay  calculated  using  the  employee’s  normal  hours  of  work  at   the   employee’s   basic   hourly   rate   or   compensating   leave   of   their   normal  hours  of  work,  provided  the  employee  opts  for  compensating   leave  prior  to  the  holiday.     31.05  To  qualify  for  designated  holiday  pay,  a  full-­‐time  employee  must  have   worked  his  last  scheduled  shift  prior  to  the  holiday,  his  scheduled  shift                                                                                                                             1  The  parties  advised  that  Family  Day  is  treated  the  same  as  Heritage  Day  and  is  recognized  as  a   designated  holiday  under  the  Collective  Agreement.        5   on   the   holiday,   if   any,   and   his   first   scheduled   shift   following   the   holiday,  unless  failure  to  do  so  is  caused  by  vacation  or  illness  or  injury   verified  by  a  medical  certificate.   [8] The  relevant  provisions  of  the  ESA  are  as  follows:        1(1)  “public  holiday”  means  any  of  the  following:     1.  New  Year’s  Day   2.  Good  Friday   3.  Victoria  Day   4.  Canada  Day   5.  Labour  Day   6.  Thanksgiving  Day   7.  Christmas  Day   8.  December  26   9.  Any  day  prescribed  as  a  public  holiday;  (“jour  férié”)   “regular   wages”   means   wages   other   than   overtime   pay,   public   holiday   pay,   premium  pay,  vacation  pay,  termination  pay  and  severance  pay  and  entitlements   under   a   provision   of   an   employee’s   contract   of   employment   that   under   subsection   5   (2)   prevail   over   Part   VIII,   Part   X,   Part   XI   or   Part   XV;   (“salaire   normal”)   No  contracting  out   5.  (1)  Subject  to  subsection  (2),  no  employer  or  agent  of  an  employer  and  no   employee  or  agent  of  an  employee  shall  contract  out  of  or  waive  an  employment   standard  and  any  such  contracting  out  or  waiver  is  void.    2000,  c.  41,  s.  5  (1).     Greater  contractual  or  statutory  right   (2)  If  one  or  more  provisions  in  an  employment  contract  or  in  another  Act  that   directly  relate  to  the  same  subject  matter  as  an  employment  standard  provide  a   greater  benefit  to  an  employee  than  the  employment  standard,  the  provision  or   provisions  in  the  contract  or  Act  apply  and  the  employment  standard  does  not   apply.    2000,  c.  41,  s.  5  (2).     PART  X  -­‐  PUBLIC  HOLIDAYS     Public  holiday  pay   24.  (1)  An  employee’s  public  holiday  pay  for  a  given  public  holiday  shall  be  equal   to,   (a)  the  total  amount  of  regular  wages  earned  and  vacation  pay  payable  to  the   employee  in  the  four  work  weeks  before  the  work  week  in  which  the  public   holiday  occurred,  divided  by  20;  or     (b)  if  some  other  manner  of  calculation  is  prescribed,  the  amount  determined   using  that  manner  of  calculation.          6   Premium  pay   (2)  A n  e m p l o y e r  w h o  i s  r e q u i r e d  u n d e r  t h i s  P a r t  t o  p a y  p r e m i u m  p a y  t o  a n   employee   shall   pay   the   employee   at   least   one   and   one   half   times   his   or   her   regular  rate.   …   Public  holiday  ordinarily  a  working  day   26.  (1)  If  a  public  holiday  falls  on  a  day  that  would  ordinarily  be  a  working  day  for   an  employee  and  the  employee  is  not  on  vacation  that  day,  the  employer  shall   give  the  employee  the  day  off  work  and  pay  him  or  her  public  holiday  pay  for  that   day.   Exception   (2)  T h e  e m p l o y e e  h a s  n o  e n t i t l e m e n t  u n d e r  s u b s e c t i o n  ( 1 )  i f  h e  o r  s h e  f a i l s ,   without  reasonable  cause,  to  work  all  of  his  or  her  last  regularly  scheduled  day  of   work  before  the  public  holiday  or  all  of  his  or  her  first  regularly  scheduled  day  of   work  after  the  public  holiday.   Public  holiday  not  ordinarily  a  working  day   29.  (1)  If  a  public  holiday  falls  on  a  day  that  would  not  ordinarily  be  a  working   day  for  an  employee  or  a  day  on  which  the  employee  is  on  vacation,  the  employer   shall   substitute   another   day   that   would   ordinarily   be   a   working   day   for   the   employee  to  take  off  work  and  for  which  he  or  she  shall  be  paid  public  holiday   pay  as  if  the  substitute  day  were  a  public  holiday.     …   Exception   (4)  The  employee  has  no  entitlement  under  subsection  (1),  (2.1)  or  (3)  if  he  or   she   fails,   without   reasonable   cause,   to   work   all  o f  h i s  o r  h e r  l a s t  r e g u l a r l y   scheduled  day  of  work  before  the  public  holiday  or  all  of  his  or  her  first  regularly   scheduled  day  of  work  after  the  public  holiday.     The  parties’  positions   [9]    The  Union  acknowledges  that  the  Grievor  did  not  qualify  for  holiday  pay   under  the  Collective  Agreement.    The  Union  also  acknowledges  that  the  Collective   Agreement  provides  a  greater  number  of  holidays.    However,  the  Union  takes  the   position  that  the  Collective  Agreement  provides  a  lesser  benefit  than  the  applicable   ESA  standard.    In  particular,  the  Union  points  out  that  the  qualifying  threshold  for   entitlement  to  holiday  pay  under  the  Collective  Agreement  is  more  onerous  than  the    7   qualifying  threshold  under  the  ESA.    Therefore,  the  Union  argues  that  the  Grievor   ought  to  be  paid  holiday  pay  under  the  less  onerous  qualifying  threshold  set  out  in   the   ESA.     The   Union   submits   that  emergency   leave   meets   the   ESA   qualifying   threshold  for  payment  of  holiday  pay.    Therefore,  the  Grievor  ought  to  have  been   paid  holiday  pay  for  Christmas  Day  2014.       [10] The  Union  relied  on  the  following  authorities  to  support  their  argument:     Brown  &  Beatty,  Canadian  Labour  Arbitration  (4th  edition)  8:3100  Holiday  Pay;  Re   TCF  of  Canada  Limited  and  Textile  Workers  Union  of  America,  Local  1332  (1972),  1   L.A.C.   (2d)   382   (Addell);  Employment   Standards   Act  –   Policy   and   Interpretation   Manual,  Thomson  Routers  Canada  Limited;  Sysco  Food  Services  of  Ontario  v.  CAW   Canada,  Local  414  (2002),  111  L.A.C.  (4th)  425  (Solomatenko).   [11] The  Employer  expressed  sympathy  for  the  Grievor’s  unfortunate  situation.     However,  the  Employer  submits  that  the  determination  of  this  matter  is  not  based   on   sympathy,   but   rather   on   the   agreement   between   the   parties.     The   Employer   submits  that  the  Collective  Agreement  was  not  violated.    Furthermore,  the  Employer   argues  that  the  Collective  Agreement  provisions  provide  a  greater  benefit  than  the   ESA.       [12] The  Employer  submits  that  a  global  assessment  of  the  holiday  provisions  of   the  Collective  Agreement  and  the  holiday  provisions  of  the  ESA  illuminate  that  the   Collective  Agreement  provides  a  greater  benefit.    The  Employer  points  out  that  the   Collective  Agreement  benefit  is  greater  both  in  terms  of  the  number  of  holidays  and   the   amount   of   holiday   pay   that   an   employee  is  e n t i t l e d  t o  receive  under   the   Collective  Agreement.       [13] The   Employer   acknowledges   that   the   qualifying   threshold   under   the   Collective  Agreement  is  more  onerous  than  the  qualifying  threshold  under  the  ESA.     However,   the   Employer   takes   the   position   that   the   qualifying   threshold   is   not    8   determinative   and   overall   the   Collective   Agreement   provides   a   greater   benefit.     Accordingly,  the  Employer  argues  that  the  grievance  must  be  dismissed.   [14] The  Employer  relied  on  the  following  authorities  to  support  their  position:   Queen’s  University  v.  Fraser  (1985)  51  O.R.  (2d)  140  (Div.  Crt.);  Biltrite  Industries  and   USWA  (Bailey  and  Suarez)  (2003),  77  C.L.A.S.  257  (Mikus);  U.A.W.,  Local  251  and   Tilbury  Assembly  Ltd.  (2006)  86  C.L.A.S.  286  (Etherington);  National  Steel  Car  Ltd.  v.   U.S.W.,  Local  7135  (2011),  109  C.L.A.S.  105  (Mohamed);  689737  Ontario  Ltd.  v.  CAW-­‐ Canada,  Local  252  (2011),  107  C.L.A.S.  52  (Armstrong).   Decision   [15] After  carefully  considering  the  submissions  of  the  parties,  the  language  of   the  Collective  Agreement  and  the  provisions  of  the  ESA,  I  find  for  reasons  elaborated   upon  below,  that  the  grievance  must  be  dismissed.   [16] There  is  no  dispute  that  the  Grievor  did  not  qualify  for  holiday  pay  under   the  Collective  Agreement.    Therefore,  the  only  issue  that  needs  to  be  determined  is   whether  or  not  the  provisions  of  the  Collective  Agreement  provide  a  greater  benefit   than   the   ESA.     If   the   Collective   Agreement   provides   a   greater   benefit,   then   the   grievance   must   be   dismissed.     On   the   other   hand,   if   the   Collective   Agreement   provides  a  lesser  benefit,  then  the  Grievor  would  be  entitled  to  holiday  pay  under   the  ESA.2       [17] The   ESA   provides   minimum   employment   standards   for   individual   employees   in   the   Province   of   Ontario.     The   Collective   Agreement   provides   for   collective  rights  and  benefits  for  all  employees  covered  by  the  agreement.    Section   5(1)  of  the  ESA  prohibits  contracting  out  of  or  waiving  an  employment  standard.                                                                                                                               2  See  ESA  Policy  and  Interpretation  Manual  “Reasonable  Cause”    9   However,  parties  are  free  to  negotiate  a  greater  right  or  benefit  in  their  Collective   Agreement.3     [18] There   is   no   doubt   that   determining   whether   a   Collective   Agreement   provision  provides  a  greater  right  or  benefit  can  be  a  bit  like  trying  to  put  a  square   peg  in  a  round  hole.    Fortunately,  there  have  been  a  number  of  cases  dealing  with   this  topic,  which  provide  guidance.       [19] The  leading  case  in  this  area  is  the  Ontario  Divisional  Court  decision  in  Re   Queen’s  University  v.  Fraser,  supra,  (“Queen’s  University”).  The  relevant  provisions  of   the  Divisional  Court’s  decision  are  as  follows.        Van  Camp,  J.  states  at  paragraph  8:    …  The  parties  may  contract  out  of  the  Employment  Standards  Act  by  providing   greater  benefits  respecting  holidays  than  the  provision  of  Part  VII  of  the  Act.     One  must  look  at  the  entirety  of  the  terms  in  the  agreement  respecting  holidays   and  not  compare  each  individual  item.      White  J.  states  at  paragraph  38:   In  my  opinion,  the  arbitrator  erred  in  ruling  that  he  could  not  compare  all  of  the   benefits  apropos  of  holidays  and  holiday  pay  as  found  in  Article  18  with  the   standard   found   in   S.   26(4)  o f  t h e  A c t .    A  p r o p e r  c o m p a r i s o n ,  w h i c h  i n  m y   opinion  involves  the  placing  in  one  pan  of  a  metaphorical  scale  the  minimum   standard  set  out  in  S.  26(4)  and  placing  in  the  other  pan  the  totality  of  rights  or   benefits   or   lesser   hours   of   work   provided   for   in   Article   18   would   fully   preponderate  the  scale  in  favour  of  Article  18.      …   [20] The  Queen’s  University,  supra,  decision  has  consistently  been  followed  by   arbitrators   when   determining   whether   or   not   a   collective   agreement   provides   a   greater  benefit,  in  its  entirety,  and  not  based  on  an  item-­‐by-­‐item  analysis  of  the   holiday  provisions.4   [21] The  arbitral  jurisprudence  has  evolved  since  Queen’s  University,  supra,  and   it  is  now  well  accepted  that  a  two-­‐tiered  legal  inquiry  is  required  under  s.  5(2)  of  the   ESA  to  determine  whether  a  greater  benefit  exists  generally  for  all  employees  and                                                                                                                             3  See  Section  5(2)  of  the  ESA   4  See  689737  Ontario  Limited  v.  CAW  Canada,  Local  252  (2011),  107  C.L.A.S.  52  (Armstrong)    10   specifically  to  an  individual  employee.  This  two-­‐tiered  legal  inquiry  is  set  out  by   Arbitrator   Mohamed   at   paragraphs   19   and   20   of  h e r  a w a r d  National   Steelcar   Limited  v.  USW,  Local  7135,  supra,  quoting  the  decision  of  Arbitrator  Albertyn  in   Zehrs  Markets  v.  UFCW,  Local  1977  (2009),  Carswell  Ont.  678  (upheld  by  the  Ontario   Divisional  Court)  as  follows:      19…      Arbitrator  Albertyn  held  at  page  14:   I  am  persuaded  that  the  approach  of  Arbitrator  Burkett  in  Shepherd  Village   should   be   followed.     The   comparison   of   benefits,   as   between   a   collective   agreement   and   the   ESA,   is   global;   the   application   of   the   benefit   must   be   assessed   on   an   individual   basis.     The   first   inquiry   is   to   make   the   global   comparison   between   the   general   holiday   pay   benefit   under   the   Collective   Agreement   and   the   statutory   holiday   pay   provisions   under   the   Act.     This   is   distinct  from  the  second  inquiry  to  the  application  of  the  overall,  better  benefit   to  each  particular  employee.    Taking  the  two  inquiries  together,  the  question  is   do  the  collective  agreement  holiday  pay  provisions  provide  a  greater  benefit  for   each  and  every  employee?    That  is  the  question  to  be  answered.   20.  Arbitrator  Albertyn’s  adoption  of  the  two-­‐tiered  inquiry  was  endorsed  as   the  “appropriate”  legal  inquiry  under  Section  5(2)  of  the  ESA  by  the  Divisional   Court   in   their   judicial   review   of   Arbitrator   Albertyn’s   decision   in   the  Zehrs   Markets  case  (supra).        On  behalf  of  the  Divisional  Court,  Austin  J.,  held,  at  page  6:   The  arbitrator  properly  held  that  the  second  inquiry  is  required  because   Section  5(2)  of  the  ESA  expressly  makes  the  comparison  of  the  relative   value   of   the   benefits   applicable   to   “an   employee”.     The   ESA   does   not   contemplate   that   a   collective   agreement   providing   greater   benefit   for   some  employees  can  deprive  others  of  their  statutory  entitlement.      For   example,  one  cannot  pay  all  but  one  employee  $15.00  per  hour  and  the   remaining  $3.00  per  hour.    Such  result  would  be  “illegitimate”  as  “every   employee   would  not   receive   the   greater   benefit   or   the  statutory   minimum”.       [22] Applying  the  applicable  arbitral  consensus  to  the  facts  before  me,  I  find  the   Collective   Agreement  provisions  directly  relating  to   the  ESA   public  holiday   provisions  provide  a  greater  benefit.       [23] Article   31   of   the   Collective   Agreement   provides   thirteen   holidays   as   opposed  to  the  nine  holidays  enumerated  under  the  ESA.    In  addition,  article  31.02    11   provides  greater  holiday  pay  for  employees  covered  by  the  Collective  Agreement  as   opposed  to  the  provisions  found  in  s.  24  of  the  ESA.    The  only  Collective  Agreement   provision   that   is   less  than   the   employment   standard   is  t h e  q u a l i f y i n g  t h r e s h o l d   requirements  for  being  paid  holiday  pay.    In  my  opinion,  this  one  provision  does  not   detract  from  the  global  assessment  that  the  Collective  Agreement  provides  a  greater   benefit  to  employees  under  the  Collective  Agreement.5   [24] The   second   inquiry   is   to   determine   whether   the   Collective   Agreement   provides  a  greater  benefit  to  the  individual  employee.    In  this  regard,  the  evidence   before  me  is  that  the  Grievor  was  not  paid  for  Christmas  Day  because  he  did  not   qualify  under  the  Collective  Agreement.    I  have  no  evidence  before  me  to  suggest   that   the   Grievor   was   not   paid  for  any   of  the  other   twelve  Collective   Agreement   holidays.     Accordingly,   it   cannot   be   said   that   the   Employer   violated   the   ESA   by   failing  to  pay  the  Grievor  for  Christmas  Day  2014.       [25] There  is  no  doubt  that  the  Grievor  found  himself  in  a  very  difficult  situation,   which  is  deserving  of  sympathy.    However,  in  this  case  the  Employer  did  not  violate   the  Collective  Agreement  or  the  ESA.       [26] Therefore,  for   all   the   reasons   stated   above,  the   grievance   must   be   dismissed.       Dated  at  Toronto,  Ontario  this  27th  day  of  September,  2015.                                                                       John  Stout,  Sole  Arbitrator                                                                                                                                 5  See  Biltrite  Industries  and  USWA  (Dailey  and  Suarez)  (2003),  Carswell  Ont.  9734  (Mikus)