HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-0487UNION96_07_24
-
ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO
1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT ,
REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO ON M5G 1Z8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE (416) 326-1388
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ON) M5G 1Z8 FACSIMILEfELECOPIE. (416) 32(5-1396
GSB 487/96
OPSEU # 96U065
IN THE HATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Union Grievance)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Management Board secretariat)
Employer
BEFORE B. Fisher Vice-Chairperson
FOR THE H Law
GRIEVOR Negotiator
Collective Bargaining Department
Ontario Public service Employees Union
FOR THE D. Chiro
EMPLOYER Coordinator, C A Negotiation
Management Board Secretariat
HEARING July 24, 1996
--
2
DECISION
The Board issued an interim decIsion in this matter on June 18, 1996 In thafdecision the
Board stated it would reconvene on July 24, 1996, to hear the submissions of the parties
regarding the implementation date of the Agreement between the parties dated May 23,
1996 Havmg heard those submissions and carefully considered the matter, the Board's
decIsion is as follows.
Before proceeding it is useful to set out the terms of the relevant Agreement.
1 The parties agree that the principles of Article 25 1 (b) shall apply in cases of
GO-Temp employees appointed to the classified staff
For example, an employee who was appointed to classified service July 5,
1994 and served as a GO-Temp from January 15, 1991 to July 4, 1994 and
had a break from March 6 to 18, 1993, shall be given a continuous service
date of January 15, 1991 Only a break in employment greater than thirteen
weeks shall cause a break In service for purposes of this letter;
2 The parties agree that Article 25 1 (b) applies to all employees irrespective
of date of appointment to the classified service.
As noted in the interim decision, the parties are in agreement as to the application of the
terms of the above Agreement. Paragraph 1 provides that continuous full-time GO-Temp
service immediately prior to appointment to the classified service shall be included in the
calculation of an employee's continuous service date The effect of the Agreement in this
regard is to amend Article 25 1 (b) of the Collective Agreement to formally include GO-Temp
service as unclassified service for the purposes of calculating an employee's continuous
service date.
-=
3
Paragraph 2 of the Agreement further amends Article 25 to negate the effect ot the reference
to February 3, 1992, In 25 1 and the reterence to January 1, 1992, in 25 1 (b> in that the
calculation tormula. as amended by paragraph 1 as described above, appiles to all
unclassified employees (i e. excluding former seasonal unclassified cover~ ur:der Article
25 1 Cd)) equally irrespective of their date of appomtment to the classified servIce. It 1.5
apparent that the parties have agreed that a 5lngle c.alculatiOn formula shaH appl y to all
persons appointed to the Civrl Service pursuant to Article 25 1(b) Previously a dIfferent
formula was used to ca.lculate the senlonty of a person appointed to the classIfied service
prior to the Collective Agreement dated January' I, 1992 to December 3 i, 1993 than a
person appointed to the classified during the term of that Collective Agreement. The May
23, 1996, Agreement eliminates this mconSlste:"lcy
However one further Issue arose In respE-ct to thE! mterpretation ot the Agreement. The
example Cited in respect to paragrap~ 1 IS mcorrect and flies-In-the-face of the dear and
express wording of Article 25 1(b) in that it appears to give senIority credit for tImE: not
worked, i e. t.1arch 6 to 18 1993 Article 25 1 (b) states that a classified employee's
continuous service date "shall commence from the date established by addmg the actual
number of full-time weeks worked (emphasis added) rr The first sentence In paragraph
1 Indrcates the parties' Intention simply to Include GO-Temp service as appropnate
unclassified service. It IS dear and unambiguous. There is no eVidence of any intention to
alter the clear wording of Article 25 1 (b) Theretore, In the exampie conta.ned in paragraph
1 the January 15, 1991 date would have to be adjusted to accommodate the breal-. m serVice
from f'1arch 6 to 18, 1993, thereby establIshing a new attrIbuted con.tmuous service date.
Th~ next issue to be dealt wIth IS when should the Agreement be Implemented The
Umon's position is that the implementation date should be the date of the A.greement The
Employer's representative argued that the Agreement can not be lmplemented until the then
current round of lay-offs is completed
-- ~-
4
After carefully considering the matter, the Board's decision is that the Agreement should be
implemented as of July 24, 1996 To find in favour of the Union would-require clear
wording in the Agreement that the parties intended to alter the method of calculating
seniority in the midst of massive lay-offs occurnng. Absent clear language to that effect, the
Board can not find that the parties intended the Agreement to be implemented on the day
it was signed
However, clearly the parties have signalled their intention to institute a single seniority
formula for persons appointed to the c1assifi€d service with prior full-time (non-seasonal)
unclassified service. In respons~ to a question from the Board, the Management Board
representative indicated that at present no large-scale lay-offs were underway Accordingly,
this Board orders that the calculation formula In the May 23, 1996 Agreement be
implemented as of the date of this hearing, July 24, 1996
The Union raised one final matter to be determined Vacation entitlements as with other
benefits under the parties' Collective Agreement are dependent on an employee's length of
continuous service. It is this Board's finding that all benefits contingent upon length of
continuous service shall be adjusted in accordance with all revised continuous service dates
resulting from the implementation of the May 23 Agreement. There shall be no retroactive
entitlements.
Finally, it should be understood that this ruling has arisen out of extremely unique
circumstances and should not be viewed as a precedent in any respect. At the Board's
urging the parties agreed that this decision is of no precedentlal value.
It IS so ordered
.., .
5
I will remain seized to deal with any difficulties arising from this award -
DATED at Toronto ~y of <T'-1.lt996
\ ~
, /
/' ,..
~/ ~
~