HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-0534.Hunt et al.04-01-23 Decision
Crown Employees Commission de ~~
Grievance Settlement reglement des griefs
Board des employes de la
Couronne
~-,...
Suite 600 Bureau 600 Ontario
180 Dundas Sl. West 180 rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396 Telec. (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2001-0534 2003-2944
UNION# 01F476 2003-0999-0023
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Hunt et al ) Grievor
- and -
The Crown In RIght of Ontano
(Mimstry of the Attorney General) Employer
BEFORE RandI Abramsky Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION GavIn Leeb
Barnster and SOlICItor
FOR THE EMPLOYER Kelly Burke
Semor Counsel
Management Board Secretanat
HEARING January 14 2004
2
DeCISIon
The Umon has moved to consolIdate a gnevance filed on August 20 2003 wIth the case
currently before thIS Board. The Employer has opposed that motIOn. ThIS Order addresses the
Issue of consolIdatIOn.
The gnevance currently before the Board IS a group gnevance filed on May 4 2001 by
three full-tIme Court Reporters The gnevance states
We gneve on the basIs that by changIng the work polIcy for classIfied court
reporters at 80 The East Mall we have been forced to perform authonzed dutIes
on overtIme hours wIth no overtIme pay contrary to ArtIcle OAD 831 [and 84]
of the collectIve agreement.
The settlement desIred was
Full redress to Include overtIme pay OWIng for the last ten years calculated on
government T4's for thIS penod, based on the Mimstry's standard of seven pages
per hour
At the first day of heanng, July 10 2003 the Employer raised a prelImInary obJ ectIOn to
the gnevance on the basIs that It was untImely filed under the collectIve agreement. In a decIsIOn
dated July 18 2003 I dIsmIssed that motIOn, rulIng that the gnevance was a "contInuIng"
gnevance and therefore tImely under the collectIve agreement.
On August 20 2003 the Umon filed a polIcy gnevance whIch states as follows
The work assocIated wIth the preparatIOn and productIOn of typed transcnpts and
certIfYIng them as accurate IS bargaInIng umt work to whIch the collectIve
agreement applIes
The settlement desIred was
3
1 A declaratIOn that the work assocIated wIth the preparatIOn and productIOn of
typed transcnpts and certIfYIng them as accurate IS bargaInIng umt work to whIch
the collectIve agreement applIes
2 That the Umon and all affected persons be made whole IncludIng Interest.
3 Any other remedy the Board deems appropnate
The Umon has now moved to consolIdate the two gnevances It argues that under the
Board's rules regardIng consolIdatIOn, there IS a common questIOn of law and fact to be decIded
In the two cases It notes that the Employer has taken the posItIOn, In the first gnevance that
prepanng transcnpts IS not "bargaInIng umt" work and the Umon has taken the contrary posItIOn.
In ItS VIew In order to determIne whether the IndIVIdual gnevors are entItled to receIve overtIme
pay for prepanng transcnpts, I must first determIne whether such work IS bargaInIng umt work-
the preCIse Issue raised In the Umon gnevance
The Umon further submIts that the relIef claimed - overtIme pay - anses In both gnevances
and that consolIdatIOn would most efficIently utIlIze the Board's and the partIes' resources
The Employer opposes the motIOn to consolIdate It asserts that the two gnevances are qUIte
dIfferent and do not raise a common questIOn of law or fact. It submIts that the first gnevance IS
about an alleged InCOnsIstent practIce regardIng tIme for prepanng transcnpts at 80 The East
Mall compared to other courts, and does not Involve a need to determIne whether or not the
preparatIOn of transcnpts IS bargaInIng umt work. It further contends that the relIef sought IS
dIfferent and argues that the Umon IS attemptIng to broaden the scope of the gnevance It further
notes that the polIcy gnevance was filed two years after the group gnevance
4
Decision
The GSB' s standard for consolIdatIOn IS found In both the case law and the Board's
Rules, at AppendIX A, regardIng "ConsolIdatIOn of Cases" dated January 2003 The rule states
Where two or more proceedIngs are pendIng before the Gnevance Settlement
Board and It appears to the Gnevance Settlement Board that,
(a) They have a questIOn oflaw or fact In common,
(b) The relIef claimed In them anses out of the same transactIOn or occurrence or
senes of transactIOns or occurrences or
(c) For any other reason an order ought to be made under thIS rule the Gnevance
Settlement Board may order that
(1) the proceedIngs be consolIdates, or heard at the same tIme or one ImmedIately
after the other or
(2) any of the proceedIngs be,
(i) stayed untIl after the determInatIOn of any other of them,
(iI) abndge the tIme for placIng a gnevance on the heanng lIst.
As set forth In OPSEU (Ferraro) and Ministry of Community Family and Children s
Services GSB No 1200100 (Mikus), CItIng Smith and Ministry of Correctional Services GSB
No 545194 other factors Include efficIency of resources, cost saVIngs, and aVOIdIng conflIctIng
findIngs of fact.
ApplYIng all of these factors to the case before me, I am persuaded that an order to
consolIdate the two gnevances IS appropnate In thIS matter In my VIew there IS a common
questIOn of law and fact Involved In the two matters In my earlIer Award, at p 11 I determIned
that "the gnevance Involves an alleged ongOIng faIlure to comply wIth the overtIme reqUIrements
set forth In the collectIve agreement." The gnevance IS not about an alleged InCOnSIstent practIce
regardIng the preparatIOn of transcnpts on work tIme, although that was a matter raised by the
5
Umon. The gnevance claims that the gnevors were "forced to perform authonzed dutIes
[preparatIOn of transcnpts] on overtIme hours wIth no overtIme pay" The polIcy gnevance
Involves whether the preparatIOn and certIficatIOn oftranscnpts IS bargaInIng umt work to whIch
the collectIve agreement applIes - IncludIng the overtIme provIsIOns In my VIew the two
gnevances raise common questIOns of law and fact whIch render an order to consolIdate them
appropnate Other factors such as the aVOIdance of conflIctIng decIsIOns and efficIency of
resources also apply In thIS matter
AccordIngly the motIOn to consolIdate IS granted.
Issued at Toronto thIS 23rd day of January 2004
Ran€h H. Abramsky
Vice-Chair