HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-1939COULING96_12_18
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 ONTARIO M5G lZ8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE (416) 326-1388
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 2100 TORONTO (ONTARIO) M5G lZ8 FACSIMILE /TEU~COPIE (416) 326-1396
GSB # 1939/96
OPSEU # 96G188
IN THE HATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Couling)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Health)
Employer
BEFORE R J. Roberts Vice-Chairperson
FOR THE G. Leeb
GRIEVOR Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE D Chiro
EMPLOYER Coordinator, C A Negotiaions
Management Board Secretariat
HEARING November 19, 1996
." 1
AWARD
In thIS case, the gnevor, who was deemed to be an essential worker dunng the stnke, claImed to
be unable to work due to stress from March 7 to 24, 1996 He claImed paid sIck leave under
ArtIcle 10 of the June 13, 1996 Memorandum of Settlement between Management Board and
OPSEU (the Memorandum) for March 11 to 14, the tIme he was scheduled to work dunng thIS
penod. He submItted a form-type doctor's note from hIS physIcIan, Dr J C Charron, certIfymg
that he was absent due to "personal Illness/inJury"and was unable to attend work untIl an
antICIpated return date of March 25, 1996
The employer refused to pay SIck leave to the gnevor because It had mformatIOn leadmg It to
belIeve that the gnevor was not III as claimed. The employer noted that on October 13, 1995, the
gnevor had requested and receIved vacatIOn leave for the penod March 11 to 24, 1996 and thIS
leave was cancelled along WIth all other vacatIOn leaves when the stnke loomed Moreover the
employer had InfOrmatIOn that dunng the penod March 11 to 24 the gnevor \\-as not at home but
In Myrtle Beach, South Carolma. ThIS raised a strong Inference, the employer saId, that the
,/ 2
gnevor was attemptmg to use sIck leave to cover what, 111 fact, was vacatIOn tIme
For the most part, I find myselfm agreement wIth the posItIOn of the employer The comcIdence
between the tIme of the requested vacatIon leave and the tIme the gnevor claimed to be unable to
work due to stress IS too stnkmg to be Ignored -- partIcularly where, as here, the gnevor appeared
to have travelled to hIS vacatIOn destmatIOn. It would take more than a very general form-type
Doctor's note to dIsplace the adverse mference to be drawn from such facts.
In my VIew, It IS not mconsIstent With the mtent of the partIes m ArtIcle 10 of the Memorandum
to refuse to pay sick tIme upon a Doctor's note that was clearly madequate m the
cIrcumstances.That IS preCIsely what happened here
At the same tlme, It seems to me that the most appropnate resolutIOn of thIS matter IS not to deny
the gnevor any possibIlIty of receIvmg compensatIOn for March 11 to 14 Rather, the employer
should gIve the gnevor the optIOn of SubstItutmg vacatIOn credIts for those days, As a matter of
fairness, thIS would allow the gnevor's ongmal vacatIOn request to be honoured, It IS so awarded.
Dated at Toronto, Ontano, thIS 18th day of December, 1996
~