HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-0885.Desando.99-10-20 Decision
()NTARI() EMPUJYES DE LA nWR()N7I.fE
f'R()W7I.f EMPL()YEES DE L'()NTARI()
GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
.. SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 600 TORONTO ON M5G 128 TELEPHONElTELEPHONE, (416) 326-1388
180 RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 600 TORONTO (ON) M5G 128 FACSIMILElTELECOPIE. (416) 326-1396
GSB # 0885/97
OPSEU # 97B734
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Desando)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown m RIght of Ontano
(Mimstry of Health)
Employer
BEFORE Owen V Gray Vice ChaIr
FOR THE Micheal A. Klug
GRIEVOR Counsel
Tolpuddle Labour Co-operatIve
FOR THE Fateh SalIm
EMPLOYER Counsel, Legal ServIces Branch
Management Board Secretanat
HEARING October 5 1999
DECISION
[1] The gnevor went on pregnancy leave m July 1996 Her first chIld was
born m August 1996 She was due to return to work from matermty leave on
February 21 1996 The umon began a legal stnke that day however and the
gnevor dId not return to work untIl Apnl 1 1996 Durmg her matermty leave
she had become pregnant agam. She worked untIl late June 1996 She then went
on sIck leave Her second chIld was born July 29 1996
[2] The gnevor gneved the employer's faIlure to pay her supplementary em
ployment msurance top up durmg the absence assocIated wIth the bIrth of her
second chIld The relevant portIOn of the collectIve agreement IS ArtIcle 60 3 1
50 '3 1 An employee entItled to pregnancy leave under thIS artIcle who
provIdes the Employer WIth proof that she IS In reCeIpt of
unemployment Insurance pursuant to the Unemployment Insurance
Act, (Canada) shall be paId an allowance In accordance WIth the
Supplementary Unemployment Benefit PIan.
[3] The gnevor dId not qualIfy for unemployment msurance matermty bene
fits m respect of the absence assocIated WIth the bIrth of her second chIld She
dId not have enough weeks of msurable employment to qualIfy She receIVed a
letter from Human Resources Development Canada to that effect At the hearmg
of thIS gnevance I was told that the gnevor consIdered she was entItled to the
benefit contemplated by ArtIcle 60 3 1 because that letter also saId "For your m
formatIOn, regular and SIckness benefits could be payable to you If you need
them.
[4] There was no eVIdence that the gnevor dId receIVe "regular and SIckness
benefits, nor that she had provIded the Employer WIth proof that she was m re
ceIpt of such benefits Accordmgly It was not necessary to determme whether
such benefits would constItute "unemployment msurance of the sort contem
plated m ArtIcle 60 3 1 On any VIew of the matter the gnevor had not done
2
what the ArtIcle reqUIred an employee to do m order to quahfy for the benefit
provIded for m that ArtIcle
[5] For those reasons I dIsmIssed thIS grIevance orally after hearmg the par
tIes representatIOns and submISSIOns I hereby confirm that dISposItIOn.
Dated at Toronto thIS 20th day of October 1999
~
Owen V Gray VIce ChaIr
3