Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-3774.Union Grievance.04-03-10 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# 2003-3774 UNION# 2004-0999-0002 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (Umon Gnevance) Grievor - and - The Crown In RIght of Ontano (Mimstry ofCommumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer BEFORE FelIcIty D Bnggs Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION Stephen GIles Gnevance Officer Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon FOR THE EMPLOYER Greg GledhIll Staff RelatIOns Officer Mimstry of Commumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces HEARING October 30 2003 2 DeCISIon From March 13th to May 6th 2002, the Umon and Its members were engaged In a legal stnke Pnor to the begInmng of thIS actIOn the partIes had negotIated a Memorandum of Agreement regardIng the condItIOns of work In the event of a stnke or a lockout (hereInafter referred to as the "CondItIOns Document") In that agreement It was provIded that "all collectIve agreement provIsIOns apply to essentIal and emergency workers wIthout InterruptIOn, save only that AppendIx 9 and AppendIx 18 shall not apply" The CondItIOns Document also expressly provIded the Umon contInued nght under ArtIcle 22 13 of the CollectIve Agreement to file Umon gnevances on behalf of employees who were performIng essentIal and emergency servIces Dunng the course of the stnke approxImately 5000 gnevances were filed by Umon members across the Ontano PublIc ServIce As part of the negotiatIOns that ended the work stoppage, the partIes negotIated a Return to Work Protocol That agreement contemplated vanous provIsIOns IncludIng how contInUOUS servIce, pensIOn, credIts and semonty would be affected as a result of the stnke AddItIOnally the partIes addressed other Issues such as repnsal, dIscIplIne and the mechamcs of the actual return of the bargaInIng umt members to the workplace It was further agreed these "stnke related" gnevances would be treated separately and lItIgated In an efficIent manner To that end, on June 27 2002, OPSEU and the Mimstry of PublIc Safety and Secunty (hereInafter referred to as "MPSS") met to dISCUSS a process In order to resolve the outstandIng stnke related gnevances FolloWIng that meetIng a letter dated October 11 2002, confirmed the agreement that: In order to deal wIth the stnke related gnevances In a proactIve, expedItIOus and effectIve manner the partIes have agreed to the folloWIng . No stage 2 heanngs . No filIng of stnke related gnevances at GSB untIl agreed otherwIse . WaiVIng of tIme lImIts . RespectIvely assIgmng dedIcated resources to deal wIth the volume ApproxImately 4500 gnevances were filed by members employed by the MPSS The partIes agreed to a DIspute ResolutIOn Protocol for MPSS that Included Terms of Reference It IS not 3 necessary to provIde all of that agreement. It IS sufficIent to say that the partIes agreed to an expedIted process whereIn each party provIdes to the Vice Chair wntten submIssIOns whIch Include the facts, provIsIOns of the CollectIve Agreement, the EssentIal ServIces Agreement, legIslatIOn or any other document alleged to have been vIOlated, arguments and requested remedy Oral eVIdence would not be called although It was allowed that I could request further clanficatIOn If necessary In the event of any confusIOn regardIng the facts of the matter or the underlYIng ratIOnale I wIll dIrect the partIes to speak agaIn wIth theIr pnncIples NotwIthstandIng that some gnevors mIght wIsh to attend and provIde oral eVIdence thIS process has been efficIent and has allowed for a thorough canvaSSIng of the facts and arguments wIth respect to the vanous Issues Other procedural Issues were addressed to ensure that gnevances would be dealt wIth In a tImely fashIOn. The Terms of Reference also provIded that I would remaIn seIzed of all outstandIng stnke related gnevances filed by members workIng In MPSS ThIS process was developed In consIderatIOn of ArtIcle 22 16.2 of the collectIve agreement. It states The mediator/arbItrator shall endeavour to assIst the partIes to settle the gnevance by medIatIOn. If the partIes are unable to settle the gnevance by medIatIOn, the medIator/arbItrator shall determIne the gnevance by arbItratIOn. When determInIng the gnevance by arbItratIOn, the medIator/arbItrator may lImIt the nature and extent of the eVIdence and may Impose such condItIOns as he or she consIders appropnate The medIator/arbItrator shall gIve a SUCCInct decIsIOn wIthIn five (5) days after completIng proceedIngs, unless the partIes agree otherwIse The maJonty of the 4500 gnevances dealt wIth one of the folloWIng Issues . An allegatIOn of delayed retroactIve payments WIth a request for Interest OWIng; . An allegatIOn of faIlure to pay appropnate holIday pay for Good Fnday and Easter Monday . EntItlement to call back; . On-Call and Standby Issues for emergency workers Those matters were separately lItIgated at the Gnevance Settlement Board and decIsIOns eIther have been Issued or are pendIng. In accordance wIth the agreement of the partIes a number of heanng days were scheduled to hear and determIne the outstandIng stnke related gnevances Many of the gnevances have been resolved through medIatIOn. ThIS IS another decIsIOn dealIng wIth those matters 4 Mr SmIth and Mr Hope filed a gnevance that alleged the collectIve agreement was vIOlated when theIr paycheque was delayed by one week. It was an agreed fact that when the tIme the essentIal servIces agreement was negotIated the partIes agreed that employees workIng In CORP A Y were not essentIal Further I was Informed that the gnevors are two of approxImately ten employees In all of the publIc servIce who contInue to demand manual paycheques as opposed to dIrect bank deposIt of theIr pay The gnevors have been asked In the past to enroll In the dIrect deposIt process and they have InsIsted on maIntaInIng the system of manual cheques It was that Umon's posItIOn that the gnevors ought not to have waited to have receIved theIr paycheques It was the Employer's posItIOn that gIven that CORP A Y was not consIdered essentIal work, a one week delay was not unreasonable The delay was not IntentIOnal but was due to the anomaly of admInIstratIOn havIng to produce a manual check for the two gnevors I am of the VIew that the gnevance must fall I agree wIth the employer that In these CIrcumstances a one week delay In provIdIng a manual cheque was not unreasonable The overwhelmIng maJonty of employees receIve dIrect deposIt and that contInued on a tImely basIs It IS not partIcularly surpnsIng or unreasonable that the small number of employees who wanted manual cheques expenenced a delay In Issuance at the begInmng of the stnke There IS no eVIdence that the delay was anythIng other than Inadvertent admInIstratIve error That error though regrettable for the gnevors, was understandable In the CIrcumstances AccordIngly the gnevances are demed. Dated In Toronto thIS 10th day of March, 2004 Vice Chair