HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-0493.Gallagher.96-01-09
,
- '-
..'.' t '.... ,.' ONTARIO EMPLOyt:S DE LA COURONNE
'~, . CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L 'ONTARIO
., ';, ... "
II' II GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
.'.", .... ."'i .,. SETrlEMENT REGLEMENT
... . .,. . '. t., 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 FACSIMILEITELECOPIE (416) 326-1396
GSB # 493/94
OPSEU # 94B844
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Onder
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Gallagher)
Grievor
- and ~
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFORE M Watters Vice-Chairperson
FOR THE N Roland
GRIEVOR Barrister & Solicitor
FOR THE D Costen
EMPLOYER Counsel
Legal Services Branch
Management Board Secretariat
,
!
HEARING April 12, 1995
May 30, 1995
November 13, 14, 1995
'\
"
.
- 1 -
This pl~Dc:eed i I1g al~ i E'.;!:?~':; from the gl" i E1vc~nc:(~ C).f IVII" David [,jaIl C':\ghE::'I"
d,,,\tf.o>r.:I April .....6, .1994 fhe gl'- i evor.' atssel'''tl:.-::d the'~'ei n that hE;'> had bE:?E:n
LIn lL.IS.tl Y d i ~5mi s;sed fl~om his position as CClC11 Z <::\t t:he GLU'21ph LOI".I". ec.t i c!n 1::\ 1
CentJ~e i",nd as~: ed, by \.'1 i::\ Y of sr::r\::tl ement dC-';1si r"ed, that he bf? I~ei n~5tated to
sLlch positiclIl wit.h full n? d I". e s 5
{it the out~5et:. of the heal~:i ng, couns€;.>l f Ol~ the Empl oyel~ arJvi ~;ed t II a t
1""'le i ntemded to cont.e~;t the clr'"bi trabi 1 i ty of the gl~i evance on
iUI~i s.tJi cti anal gr"ounds He i nd i catt2d, hDWE"~Vel~ ~ that ar-gument on the i ss.u€;.>
I,>J 0 I_d. d be def en-ed Ltn t i 1 cd tel'- the presentation of evidence The Union, as
a consequence, then proceeded to lead i ts f~vi dence through the gY'.ievor and
Mr Charles ShaddE~, anothel~ Coo~ at the Guelph COI~rect i onc:\l Centre At
the conclusion of the Union s case, cOLlnsel i:or the Employer advi;::;ed thi::"\t
he ~.yi shed to mCltion for a non-suit He e\sked the\t he be permitted to so
move lrJi thou'\:: having to 1:2J. ect whe"thel'- to call ev j, denc€? Thl s n?quest WetS
premised on the pl~actice adopted by the Gr-i evance Settlement BOclrd in
Falel~, 218 8c:)I (Fishel'.') and in Gibson. Patterson, 319, '32l>/93 (Barrett)
I;' The Un i. on opposed the l"'eqLtest. After heal~ i ng and consi del'" i n9 the
I
l~especti 'lie st_tbmi. ssi ons on thi s pl~ocedLlr .:~l questi em, this Vi ce-,..Chai rpel~srm
gave the f 011 owi ng Ol~ 21,1 I~Lll i ng
II I reco(;)nize that, generally, in civil proceedings a1party
motioning for non-suit is r-equi I~ed to m.:'t~: e an election as
to Iflhetr,er- they intend tC) call evidence before such mot icon
will be entel"'tai ned A number of reasons fO!'- this requirement
are found in the reI ~?\. ant iL.u~i spl~udence, including the need
to ensul~e that the proceedings rema.i n felir to both pal~ties
and to avoid the proviSion of a benefit Ol~ acjvanti::'tge to one
p 2\1'-t y in the course of the case in sucrl a v,1.:\Y as to compromise
the neutl'''al i ty of the AI~bi tratol~ or Boal~d I n'2coqni ~e further-
thel,t t.he Gri eVCilnce Set t 1 E'men t Board in cE11J?L and in Gibson
....-----..,~-
Fattel~s9n. has adop.ted a di ++el'-ent pl'-ClCE~dul~€:? The procedure
serves to e pedite the process with l'-espect to motions fOI~
non--sLti t and, at the same time, removes any potenti a1 pr-e i LId i. ce
or advantage through not providing reasons for the deni 2\1 of
"
..
- 2 -
the lIon'-51_1i t in thclt event
,
Pl"f t~?r cClnsidering the respective submi s~dcJrls, I hc::\ve b€.?en
pf21"' suadt-'?d t.o adopt. the above prc\c:tice her.e The Emp loyer'
will be pf2rmi tted to ar.gue thE~ non-suit motion vJi thout. beinq
put to its election as to wrlethel~ t.o call evidence If I
det.el~m:i. ne that thel'-e is a pr'. i ma:\ -facie ce:\Se to m~~e.t, the parU. (?os
~'Ji 11 bE? so 2\c1vi sed wi t.hOLlt 1".e'::-..50n5 there-t'or- II
ThE> Guelph Correctional C(,2ntl~e , oper.atecl by t.1".. \?o lvli n:i. ::s't:l'''Y 0+
Corr-ec:t i 01"12\1 Sel'"vi ces, is a medium ~;ec UI'":l t 'y C::OI~lr.ecti onEil + ,;:'IC i ], it Y for"
:i. nmdt.F::S s€~r. .d. n q sr:;:.ntences of up to two ( -, ) lear~s less a cia It has tV'JO
(:: ) Sf2C:'l: j, ems, these being a correct i. oneill centl~e and an C\S'>s.es:sment and
tl~eatmf?nt unit (G.A T U) Since at 1 e2\:;t 1978 tl'lrough to July' 1, 199 _ ,
the food sel~ vi c es program at the CentrE' has been contracted out to a
sel~i es of subcontractors. The contracts were for fi ed tenns, most
I~ecent 1 y for periods of two (2 ) yec\rs TO"'Jal~ds the end of each term,
(:luring this period, the Ministry invitf?d .tenders The food ser Ii c:e;:;
contract would subsequently be awarded to the successful bidder
In 1'1'::IY 199u, the grievor- was hirecj as a f ull-t:l me Coo~: ,., by a compan'f
..:..
called Parnell Foods (Parnell) This company held t.he food ser Ii. ce5,
c:ontl~act at the Guelph Correctional Centl~e at that time and continued to
do ::';0 until AI_tgust 31, 1990 The actuC:IJ. hir-ing of the g!~ i evol~ vJas done by
Mr. E \VI f :::;L.\d \,.,Iho was then the Food Ser/ices Manager at the C€:!ntr-e of C)j'-
(
F ,;:\!'-nell The gl~ievor in this period, paid by I j. ssued by the
was crleqL\es
af DI~ement i,oned company
A company cc\lled NLltri ti anal l'1.3n ag ement Ser vi eE.\S Nutl~itiC) 1':':\1.)
SL\ccessfully bid for the food services program at the Guelph Conrecti c:.nal
Centl'-e and en t ~?I~ ed into a contl~act ""lith the Mi n i stl'''Y t:o PI'"'()Vl de ':5uc::I",
program for the per i ad from September 1 ~ 1990 to August :::; 1. , 199'2 Tr',i s
company"s tender documents wer-€? filed ac: e hibit ~ Its subsequent lettel~
,;'
1-
.
- 3 -
o-f i'_\c::c::€'.!pti:inC::E~ elated {~iUl,;Jl..\St 2( l, 199u W2lS filed as. E' hibit 4
A~:;> Wi:.\'::; the pl'''ac::t.ice with thE? food sf?rvi CElS pl'''ogt- .::lm at. the Guelph
CDI'- r" E'C: t ion i::i. 1 Centn.OJ , all t.h(,:? emp 1 DYEH:?S of F arl'1e11 ~\jOI~ ~ in id at t.h2\t
1 oC.:."It:. 'i. em, including the gr" i evol", were glven flotices o.f tel~m:i.nation by the
company PI"i.OI'. to the e pi I"at.i.c.m of i.ts contract wi. th the Minis:,try The
!;]r" i €~VOI'" , (.:\1ony w:i. th most of these other' emp10yees!1 WetS subsequent.i. y 11 i n'2d
by l\Iut!,':l ti oned. It was the gr i evol~ 5 evi, dence that he was hi I'''ed 8.S a Coo~:
'"\ 'fQl1owing an i nter"vi. ew \O"~i tl-\ Mr ,John Dennetto, \lice F'I~esi dent 0,1:
..:..
NL\tl~:i. t lemal , c\n(j one (1) othel~ repr-esentati, ve of the company. He
-::iC kno~\jl edged that!. at the .f-' he realized that these t~\jO (2) i ndi vi dLlal S
,-J.me,
V\ler e not employees of the Ministry of Cor'r'ect i onal Services bLtt, rathel~',
~'~er e actin!;] <:1:5 aqer"lts of N\..\tl~i ti onal Management Services The terms .:."Ind
conditions of the grievor s employment with this company were outlined in
a 1 €;t teJ'- to 1"11'. Gallagher- f n::lm Mr Bennetto dated ALlgLtst ,..,-. 199' l. This
.... ,
docLlment was filed as e: hibit 1 '? There was no break in the gr i evor' s
.......
employment in the tl~ansition fl~om Pal~nell to Nutri .ti onal In th~'-?
gl'- i evol~ swords, <::\11 that changed wa,s "the name on the cheque"
At some point i.n the Fall of 1990, MI~ l"li f sud , who n:'mai ned at the
i. Ilst. J. tut.i. on as an employee of Nut.l~itiona.l , assigned the grievor- to ~.~o\'- k in
.the kitchen ar-ea o'f c:. A.T U Thel~e , genel~al1 y spea~ing" the gl~ i eVOl~'
1 -.
.:lssi steti with the pr-eparat i. on and serving of inmate meals. He also helped
with the mOllitol~'ing and di r~'?cti on oi: inmates being trained in the food
E.l<::"?I~Vl ces c\t- e a The gr i e\lOI~ r-eferred to this position as "coo~-
Supel~vi sor-" The gr i evol~ injured his sl")oul del'" while wor~ing on this iob
This in iLIY-'}', ul ti roa.tc,'>! y, led to an absence fl~om wor'f: fOI~ t.he peril::,d June
to October- 1991. The grievor received Wqr,kers Compensation Act benefits
i
,;..
.
- 4 -
dl..wing this work I'-el <,,'led absence He subr::;equentl y ret.urned to the WOl'- ~
P 1 ","ce al"'ound 't:he beq:i.nning (jf Octobc~I'- 1991 Un'Fortunat.el y~ he was;
merJi ciiIlll y unfi.t t.o per'f or-m the duties e pected in his for'mer- position
l\I uti'" i t i em .:-\1 ac c omrnoLJ c\ t ed tl'-.i f:5 inability by tl'''ansfen'''ing the gl~i C~VOI~ to t.t'H2
1 E~SS physically dem.:.'1ndi ng Food !:Jel~\lj. CE~r;; 1"'lel per position in the St.ii:\+ f
Ca 'f l:>t f:?I":i c::\ Wh i 1 f? this PC)s:i. ti on Wr.'IS full tiilH:-?, it. pl~ovi ded a 1 Eossel~ wage
ratE'? than tl"ie f Ol~ mer job in G PI T U As a consequence, the gt~ i ENal~
!'''eCf?'l. If?d a wa(J€~ suppl €i!ment fl~orn the \.1) L! r I. \,? Y" 5 Cc)mpensat.i on Boal~cI It: 1"-
,-;>
c 1 ear- flr'om the gr i evol~' s own evidence that he applied for bene'f'i. ts as an
emp 1 oyet~ of Nuth, ti onal . It. would seem 'f'~om the documentation filed that
the WOI~ I. el'- S Compensc'tti on BoaTd t.reated NL.ltr-i ti anal as the employer for
:its purposes
When tt-,e l'1inistr-y request.ed t(:-?n ders for the food services program at
the Guelph COlrTeCti one.1 Centre in 1992~ the sL\ccessful bidder was DCiI.J. mar
Foods Limited (Dalmar) The tendel~ documents, material to this dispute,
wel~e filed a!:5 e: hi bit 5. The subsequent Agreement dated August 21, 1992
bE~twe(?n the I l"li ni stry and Dc:''tl mar \fJas f i led as e: hibit 6 The agreement
covc?y-ed the per-iod fl~om Septembel'" 1 , 1992 to August -:::1, 1994 I-\Ii th the
c:,pti on to I~ en P-l"J .f C! r a thin::! YE,?ar- .
,
nie gr" i (-?ovor comp 1 €i!"teC'j an "AppIicatlon FOJ~ Employment" with D,:'\l m,::\!'"
i
This clpplication dat.ed August. 4, 199:2 WC1,S .f j, 1 ed as e hibit 8 The gl~ J. evol~
applied thel"'ei n 'for two (2) PQslt.icms namE,?l,/, (i) Sta'ff Dining hDOIn, 2.'1nd
(i i) (3 A T U I,: i t.chen Cook ,.., These we,"'e the positions he had plr'e\. i OU l'y
..:..
.f i 11 ed with Nutl~i ti c:mal The gri f:i?Vor" listed both Nutl'-:i ti anal and F arnel .L
as f 01'" mer- emp 1 oy€"'!r s for' PUI"'POSE;S of thi.s applicc\ti.on
The gr'i ('2vor testified that he was called into Mr Mifsud s o-ffice
.
,;.
,
0
- 5 -
wi. thi 11 two (2) to thl"E.>f? (",) da'y5 at t.el~ t.he submi s'.::;i on of his .::\ppl.i.cc~,tion
He st':'It:.ed that )'11'" Mi-fsLld, wrlo WdS";; now emp:l. oy€~d by Da]. me:!r , ad v ,L ~~ec:l him it
was Lllllil,ely he wOI"ll d be I'''ehi I"'ed "b E?C i:\LI s;e elf t.he ~~ C B thing" The
qr' i r,~vor' st:i::\tec:t f 1.,\I~ the!'" tl"'at he W6\S tol d b I \"Ir- l"Ii f ~.:;L\d that a 1 ettel~ f,"om
his dClCtOI~ si:l'ying he "'Ia.s "a hLlndl'" eel percEmt (1.0n;.)" might be of
i:':\=:;~;:L stance. The gl'" i €;!\lOr ~ a,,; a consequence, secul~f?d a not.e f t'" Dill DI~ D J
Hill, his family pl-,ysician This note dated August 14, 1992, which WetS
'f i ]. E~d as; e~' h.t bit 9, l~ead
"This man has a chl~onic shoul del~ injury bL.\t he is nevertheless
willing to tl~ y' to do his job the best he can "
E hibit 9 was subsequently given t 0 1'11~ l"li f SLId Approximately one ( 1 )
wee~ 1 atel''', the gl~ i evor was again called to the Manager s office. The
(JI~ i evar tr~stified !VIr. 1"1 i f E;ud told l'li m, inter 6'11 i a, that Dal mal~ waLl 1 d b\2
restructul~ i n9 the {oDd ':;;eY" i c:es pi~ogY-am and that he was to be "1 ai d off
with a rl'.?call" He m.:-:\i ntai ned, in cr-oss--e amination, that thi.s language
had been Llsed to descr-ibe his wor'I,: status
The gy" i evol" e" l.::;.st day of wOY"~ at the Guelph Correctional CentJ~e W",li::;
-:>
August :::: 1 , 1992 This as; noted above, was the final day of the conti~act
bet\o'4eEm N\Jtl~i ti Dna1 and th(;? l"l:i, ni strv At the time, he 1t4 a s sti 11 on Ii ght
duties in the Etaff Cai'eteJ~ia The gl'''i EVOY- w<?,s nevel~ subsequently h i I~ ed
,
"l~ecalled" by D2\1 mar He asserted t \''', a t:- others, , I t eq"-li. val ent
or vll thoLl
e peJ~i, enc:e, wel'-e hired by thc:\t company to perform wor~: which he was
c:api:cbl ~? D'f completing. On the samf.:?whc\t l:imited evidence presented on this
point., it would seem that Dalmar did in fact restr\..lctL\I~e the work place
The 12 tf.?nt Df this l~estrl.\ctLlr i ng :i.iS ch'fficult to g<::\uge It appec:\red tC)
encompass a reducticJn in the number of JUrl i Ol~ CC)o~s from seven ( 7) to five
(5 ) plus the cl~eatiDn of t ItJD (2) new Dietitian posi t ions. The parties
- --~ -.- --'
;:
.
- 6 -
~:;t i puJ. c~ted tCl t: h E.' fc'~\ct t.hat, while cE.'r"ta.i 1'1 pa.r-t.-.t i me positions werE.'
c l~ I:? c'::\ t ~:? d , the 91'" :i. evol'- ~:; pos:i.tion Wi::\S nDt then el :i, mi ni:":\t:ed
As i nd i c:c.,ted above, l"Ir" Char'J. fE'S Sh ad i e gave evi dEmce on bet'll::!lof of
the Uni em 1'11~ Bhar~ ie f:in:d:. star"ted to WOI~~ at the Guelph CDrI~c?cti Dnal
Centl'''('? i \'') Dee f!:~fTIb er 1989 l,~hen he was hir-ed by l=arnE:.,ll a~; a Coo~ 1 He Wi:':"IS
:I. a tr:?I~ h:i.,n?d by Nut.d, ti emal in DeCE?mbel~ lCf91 fC:lllowing an absence f I'. om YJor~:
due to i. n iury Ml~ Shc.1r-l. i. e was d i. smi Sised from employment in December
:1. 79 ').
The matel~i al p ar- t of 1'11~ Shark:i.e S evidence focused on a dlSc:ussion
he .::\11 eqecJl y had trJ i t Ii 111'" 1'1i f sud in the lat.ter s office in July 1992 t1l'"
5hal'" k i e st:c~ted that, at that 'j un C t Lll~ e:1 he was filling in for the Jun.i. Ol~
?-)S 5 i ~5 t. ,'::III t l'1anager' ..JIl 0 W5.S t.hen away On VC:1.CC:l.t ion It was his I~eeoll ec:ti on
.tha"t, on the Clccasion in i :~SLle \' he "-,,nd Mr Mifsud we\~e disc:ussing vJh i ell
employees "'lould li~ely be hir"E~d by tlie new company coming in to del i vel~
.f ood sel~ Ii ces In this conte t, jvlJ~ Shar'~de testified the Managel~ said
that, wit.h the contract fo!'" food services up fa!'" renetl\lal, it WaLt 1 d be his
chance t .J get I~i d of the gri evol~ because he was on W C.B I'-Ie asserted 1'1r
Mi f SLId i. nch cated that he cOLd. d not have a new company ta~e on an emploj/ee,
:ouch a~., the gr- i.1;2vor , i:\!::; it would bf2come l~esponsi bl e fell'" him in the e ,Ien't
a I~E~i nj L\I~y Shar I.: iE' indic2\ted that he as~ed Mt- 1. if he COLlI d
(:Jf 1'11'" I"it f sud
do that It was the thrust of his evidence that the Managel~ I~epl i ed thc:~t
he did not ca\~e, he was going to do .... anyway It was his further
1 \..
f2vi denc('2 that !vIr- J'1i'fsud (2 pl~essed the vi ev-J tl"l2:1,t a male !5hoLIJ. d not be
I~unni ng the Staf 'f Caf f?tel~ i a In cross-e: amination, thi. s witness
ac~ nowl f~dgE~d that: he could not pl~eci !:::.el''y pln poi nt: wI'... en this di se\..\ssi on
actually occLl1~red He bel i. eved it was iust pl'" i or to the receipt of the
..
- 7 -
notic:<::~s of tennination for t.oJi:'1Y" ded to all emp 1 r.)yees by "'uU.'i ti onaJ. at the
e> pi I".y 01: its contract.
In ApI'. i 1 1 99 1 , the United Food and Commen:: i 211 Wor j, 81'''!:5 Union (UFC~\JU )
f 11 f?!d C:~1i ap~jJ ication f c)r C:f.'~I'''t if i cat ion with the Ont.aY"io l..aboL.II'" helatior\s
BOc~l"'d ) i /"l n?spec:t of all of the !\lut:l'-iticJf1al employees WL.lr" k i !"l(] in Guelph,
Dntal'" i. 0 This, r\c'ltLw2\lly, included i:tJ, I c.1.f -1:: 1'.'1 e c: Dmp cln y 5 emp 1 oyef.:~E; WC:lI~ I, in (::J
:in the food services program at the Guelph COI'"I~ect i oneil Centre~ orI"le:"
a,t<::w.f?menti onE.d 21,ppl i C:c~t ion V-J:::'lS not oppos;ed by I'.jutl~ it i on.::'. 1 It v-Jc{ s,
hc.lv-JeVel~ , opposecl by the Ontario Fublic Service Employees Union WF3EU)
It WetS DFSEU's position trJat there was a "t,ransfer" within the meanilig of
the Cl~own Tl~ansfers Act '-'Jhen I\lL\ tr i .t i anal signed its contl~act with the
Crown to provide .food sey'.\/i ces to the Centr-e and that, accordingly, the
subcontractor inherii:ed .the civil service colI (~cti ve agl~eement betwe(~n
OFSEU and the Crown It W2\.S the position of the UFCWU that ther.e was no
trans+el~ wi tt1i J'1 the me.:H'\ing of the act and, in the alternative, that OPSEU
had I <::mg since abandoned whatEiver bar"gai ni ng I~i ghts it may have possessed.
On Decembel~ 7, 199~, the Ontario Labour F.el ai:ions Boal~d I~end€~l~ed i .~. ,".
~. :::>
dec:ision and c:onf i r'med the,t the 2\pplicat-t UFCWU had the ri ght, to ,"'epresent
the f.:':mp]. oyeE~s of Nutritional. \o'-JOI~ I, i ng at i:he Guelph Cctl"Tecti met'!. Centl'..e
It. .f Llrther det.enni ned that OFSEU had abandc.1ned any c 1 ai' m to ban;)i::\i n i ng
!
I'"i ghts5 As o.f the dc:~te Clf HilS decisiLJn~ Dal mal~ had n=pl c:~ced Nutr'''i ti onal
as t:he SLlbcontrac:tl..:w fClI~ thE! food S:,E?rvj, c:e's pl~ogram 2\,t tl,e Centl'"e The
Boal~d s reasoning, as l~e1: 1 f.:?cted in the dec i ~si on of Al tel.-natc:? Chair F. o.
MacDowell, is ref el~enc:ed in gl~eatel~ detail below
II'I eal~ 1 y 199;:, Dal mi:':'Ir" e el~c i s-5f:?d the t(?I"'!T1J. nat i on ClaUSE? in i 1':5
Agl"'eement wi trl the Ministry and gave notice that it would no longer be
..
.
- 8 -
pl~ovi di ng the .food St~rVl ce p \P' og I'" am 11"'1 r'.es\::-,ect of the (~L\E~lph Cor.I~i':?<::t i on.",l
Centr'E~ E'f+E~cti Vt'?' July 1 , 199'. , the Mi rl :i. st:r--y oJ Con'.'ect i on2(1 Services
tool.; DVf.:I~ the food services program i:":\t the C€:~ntl~e c:\n d hi. r'ecj cd 1 the
employees who wP-l~e pn?vi ousl y employed by Dal mal~. Pill of these
incjividL.lal~;; i'ler. e appointed a~-:; publiC !'~f21~vant~3 pUI~sL.lant to the tu b l.t.s.;:..
f!f~:::.Y..~l",,~-;,,~,_B c: "t;., and wE::r..e, thel'''efDre~ cover.ed by the collective c:\gr.eement
betweL~n OF'SEU c,.Ul d l"lanaqem<=mt Boar"(j of Cab inErt T(:J be c: 1 ee\r , t.he gl'''i e\/ol~
Wf7:lS not so <"::\ppoi nt.eel for.' , 2:\5 stect:ed t':\i:love, he 1"'1 ad nE'ver been hllr.eel by
Del 1 m.:.lr He Ilad ceasecl wcwk at the C(.?nt.l~e as of AUgl..IS.t ::::1, 1992.
On July 2<:;l, 1993 TIJ.S:i_,,_J; Lib J:..l:.J;. Sei~ '/Lc;~_sta'litte bE\w Amendment Act 1993
"'---~,-,-""-
c.::\me into effE~e:t The n;?l eVc.~nt pI'" 0 isions of the legislation al'''e as
.f all O\l-JS
8 1 .- ( 1) An individual is ne.t ccnsi d€':)I-ed to be a civil
servant unl e~,s he 01'" si"le he\s; been f?).:pr-e5sl y
apPCJintec:l <3".. sLlch bv the Commission or by the
.. ..:)
Lieutenant Governor" in COLine: i. 1 on the certificate
of the Comm:i. ssi em
C2) An indi'idual is not consi clered to be a p\..lb1i c
5(;?r Vem t Ltn 1 fEoSS he or she has been e:.:pressl y appointed
as such by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the
Commission, a minister Ol~ a designee of a mi.nister
"-
(3 ) An individuc\l who is empl Q'y'ed 111 the service of the
CI-Olo'm is not e:onsi d€-?t"".ed to be a CJr'Olo'm employer? unl f.'=SS
the i ndi.... i cJLc.-\l hC':\s bE!en E2 pl'-essl y appointed as such
by the L.i. eutenant C;C)vel'" n 01'" in Council, the Commission
01'" a mi IIi st.el~ !
(1()) ,. the at) s~-::r1 c €.? o.f ';:"\11 e:. pn?S~5 appointment of an indi'vldual
i.n
as a civil selr.vant, public sel-vant or Crown employee~
'the indi ...idual 5 aPPolnt.ment shall not be i nf en'''ed s\..)]. ell
fl~om the e: i Ir'cu.mstance!:: of his 01- hel'" E.mployment
(l1) This sectioll i C" dE?emeel to ha_e com(;? into force on the 18th
-~
day of [) e c: E! ird::) I::,? Ir' ~ 1.991
The grie'vor s ent i t 1 emer,t to vocational I-ehabi 1 i tat:i. on 5el''' /i Cf.'?S, and I
pl'-esumc\bl y to continuing beneflt.s, under the ~9rJi el'" s_...Coml?en sa t.L.~ Ac t
.
v
.
- 9 -
ce.~S',er.j as l:lf February ~1, 1 clqL~ rhis r.j€~c: i 5J. on ~ dfJC: UITlf-:?n t (~~d 11'1 ,;;"l ). ;,:::tt[21'"
'fl'''om Boal'" cl staff to the g 1'- i e '/Olr of t.he 5 <'\In e date (e hibit 1()), W;:'iS
pl'''f?m:i s€:::d on a 'findinq that~ the C<::)ol, :2 PCJSitlOI"l +\;:::11 wlthin t h (~\ P ::\ 1'0' ':\(IH:,! t e:: Ir S
of t.he gl~' i E~vor s med i c: cd pr'€:::c:aut:l on5. It appear's on the evi dencEo: th<::lt
/\Iu t rr i t i em ioll hc.{rJ pr-evi oLlsl y ~I at SC)(TH? poi nt in 1 <:ji93!, attempt.ed to .i. sed dte :.:\
pO'5i ti (In +01'" the gr i eVOlr clt Clne CJf it.s othet-- si tE~S c1 (J E' to London !'
(In ti::\r :i. 0 This initic.~tive lr,t a s:; Ir I'-.? 'j \"i:C t ed due to tlOO)e distance betwe,?J"l tl")e iob
and th(~ glr i eVOlr c: n?si denc:e ?"i so, rlCitf5!d, tt-oie gr" i E'" ance in thi':s i nstaro,ce Wel,S
=>
f i 1 t?d on Apr:i.l 26, 1.994
TW(:l ~2) o t 1-)(;0'1'" matters arising from the e\-idence I'''equi I'''e b I'" i f:?f
comment First.ly', i .t is clear fl'-om their testimony the-It botoh the gr" i eVOlr
cmd Mr. Shalrkie consi der"ed Mr Mifsud to have been an employee initic.'\llf
of F'alrnell and then, 1 ater, of Nutl~itional. Neither witness viewed him as
an emplo-yee of the t'li ni stry cluring the pf.':l'"oi od of these two (2)
sLlbcentl~acts l"!ir I"li f sud seemed to have OCC:Llp i ed a similar position with
Dalmar during the t:i.mf? it offet-ed the food sl'-.?rvi ces plro(;;pr'am at the C(~ntlre
Secondl/, the griever testified as to the aLrtholr it y vested in I"Ji rll stry
pelrsonnel More specifically, he stated that "when tl'1ey told you tC) clo
tj-'Iing~s~ you d i c! it, nl::J qL,est.iDrlS 21,S.;l, ed II He n2f en-oed, by Wi:IY Df e ample~
to a n:~quest to ch2"\ngE.~ a meal 01'"' part o'f a meal fhe gr"ievOl'" irHid.Lcc'.-i.te:j
!
t.hat if sLlch a IrequE\S;t was made by Mi n i stJ~y staof f, he \-\loul d comply with
!:,ame and note: it in the oc C LlIr Ir en c e boo~ Th(~ gl'" i e\- 01'- c:1 c~:io rnc:::d thi. :5
oc: cul'"l~ ed sevf?ral times Similal'"ly, he asser"ted that he would al~""'E'/S
c::omp 1 y with any direction fl'-om the LieLltenant of G.A T U arising flrom the
latter' s inspection of t.he ~ i t c::l'l en at t,he end of sh i f ot La,stloy~, i:he
grievor maintained that he cOLd d not refuse an ordelr from correctional I
.
"
- 10 -
stc~+ f tc If::~,...\;e t,h~~ pr"f':!mi '::-'8<:'; In cross 8 i::\mi n"",t: ion, he ".'Ie ~ 1"\0\1'11 8dgE~d tr'IC\t
~:;uch ,"\ d :i, 1'- E-?C t. i DII could flo\l'J fr"'om S;E!C UI~ it Y c Dn c E:'~I'" n~:; completely unreJ. <::~ted to
the PI'''QVl si on elf {\.)od ~>er'vi c:es
TI"le appl i c<:\bl E? cantl~ac::t.ual and statutory pl~ovi ~;i ons stc:\te
Qf:I1..Ghs..,,_,,~,__..:_I::J;.~QJi.~..LI..lQ!:::!,
1. 1. In i-lccordi:lnce wi th fhe Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act,
the Ont.:II~:L 0 F'Llblic Service Employees Union is recognized as the
e: clusiVF? colI {':=lct i ve bc:i11"gc:d ni ng agent fOI~ all public servant~:; other
t.hc\n per'sons ~'>jr'lo <::\I"'e not employees within .the meaning of clause f
of subs~:'?cti on :l of Section :l of The C""o~-'Jn Employees Collective
Bar'gc'.i n i ng Act
!;'E~QJit:L!=J1F..!:-_OYEES .CQ.b.LEGTL~E .BAF,.GAINING ACT
1 (U "employee" means a Crown employee as defined in the Fublic
Sel~vi ce Act but dC:les not include .
"public servant" means a public servant as defined in the
Public S(~rvi ce Act and "publ i c ser-....ice" has a corl~espondi ng
meaning;
18(2) In c::~ddj.t:i.on to any o.ther I~ights of gr i evance Llndel"' C".'t collective
agreement, an employee claiming,
(c) that he has been disciplined or dismissed Ol~ sLlspended -fl'-om
his employment \l'Ji. thout just caLIse,
may process such matter in accordance with the gl~i evance pr-o\..,edLlr-e
pr'ovi ded in the collecti~e agr-eement, and failing final
deb?r-mi nati on under such procedLlI~e, the matter may be p'I"oc:essed
in elc:cc.rdance wi th the pr-ocedur-e for final detenni nati on applicable
undE~lr sE'?ction 19
F U F,U:- t~_J3 E F, VJ C[::: Ji~ T f
l
L In this Act,
"civil sell"vant" mf:=lanS a per"son appointed to the ser'vi ce of the
Clrown by the Lieutenant Governor- 1n Council on the cel~t if i c ate
(::>f the Comrni ssi on or by the Commission, ar,d 'civil ser"vi ce"
ha.s a corr-espond i ng meaning;
"C""own emp 1 o'y ee" means a PE?I~SOn emp 1 oYE'd in the SE-?r- vi ce of
the Cr-ovm or- any agency of the ,-, but does not include an
L.,r-Ol-'Jn,
(.?mp 1 ayee o.f Ontar":i. 0 Hydr"o or- the Ontario Northland Transpor-tation
Commission;
-- --
I
I
.
- 11 -
"public sE?I'"vant /I m('~ans .::\ P E?r' Eion appoi nterJ LlndE?J~ this Act tn the
sel'"vi ce of the Cn1wn by t.he Li, eLltenant Govel'''nor" i, n COLlnc:i 1 , by
the Commi si!::~i Cln 01" by a mi ni stf:?I~, .::\nd "public 5E?rvi ce" ho:\S ii.~
c:cwroespond i ng me<.:~n i ng;
6 (:I.) Wilen a V~':\Ciimcy e ists lrl the c 1 i':\f:5si of i f:d servi c(;?, the depLlt y
mi ni E"tel'" of the mi ni. stry in which the vacancy e i sts sho~ll
nClmi n.::\t.E' in WI~ :i. t i ng fr"om tl'1e 1 i st.s; o'F eligibles of the
Commi s!::,i on a p f:l'" son to f i 11 the Vc.icancy
( ,~ ) The Commi ssi (~m sh~~1. 1 appoint the p 1::21''' son nominated L\ndI::21~ SL\bs(':?ct ion
<:1.) t.o a position on the probationary staf .F of tr'le classified
!sel'''vi c:e for not m ClI"' e than one yeal~ at a time. F\ 8 0 1 '/13U ~I
c. 4H3, s 6
7 The C(::lmmi ssi em shall, if n2quest8d in \^J!"' i 't i 1"'19 b~l the deputy
minister, l"'ecommend to the Lieutenant Governol'" in COL\ncil the
appointment of a per'son on the pl~obc:\ti onary staff o-f the
classified ser""i.ce to the regLll ,,:\r0' staff of the classified
!:;;el~vi ce, and the recommendation sl''',all be accompanied by the
certificate of qUi:\l if i catl on and i:I.ssi gnment of the Commission.
R S.O 1980, c: 418, s 7.
8 (1) A minister of any pL\bl i c: Sel'"Vant who is designated in writing
'For" the purpose by him Ol~ her may appoint for a pel'" i ad of not
mor'e than one YE.ar on the first appointment and for any pel~ i od
on an-)' subsequent appointment a person to a position in the
unclassified service in any ministry over which the minister
pF'esi des
( 2) Any appointment made by a designee under subsection (1) shall be
cjeemed t.o have bE)en made by his or her minister R 8.0 1981J,
C" 418, s B.
9. A person who is appointed to a position in the PLlbl,i c service
for" a speci-fied period ceases to be a publ i cser'vant at the
(.? pil~i:.,tiDn of that per i Del F\ r-- 0 ictaO, 4H3, s '-7
;:;J ,-
Counsel few the Employer submit.ted trlat the gl'''ievC:\,nce was
j
i nal~bi tl'''abl e This submission wc'\s pl~emi sed on tt-J 0 12) main grounds
Fil~stly, it vias c.'1F'gued that the gr 1. evol~ was never" an emplOyee of the
l'1i ni stry bL\t,~, I~ather ~I VJi::iS an employee of the food SEI'" vi ce sub contr actol~~';
at: all mater i 211 times Secondly, it was f L\r'ther ar gL\ed the Union was
~?stoppec:l fl'''om t: 1 ,,''1i mi J"'lg that it pClssessed t:ollE'cti ,;e bargaining rigiTl:s
capable of sUppol~ti ng the award of a remedy to the gl~ i evor
.
.
- 12 -
CC:luns;el c:.~I'''gl.led ~ with n'?spE;!ct to the -first gr"ol.lnd :1 that the 9 I~ i ev ColI'''
v-vc.~s n E'~ \ f21'" an E~fl)ployeE~ of the l'1i ni str"y -f 01" pLlI'" P DS: E.~S; of the colI ect i. ve
.::\g I" eemC:':)n t b~2tv'Jeen the Union and l"li:magement Board of Cabinet He ini.tiaU. )'
I'" E.~f E?I'- en c: ed ar.'t,i cl e 1 1 elf the agr'E)ement which s;tc\i:es that the Employer
1'''f2cogl''l i es OFSEU a::; "the t? elusive collective bargaining <agent for all
public SEI'" Vc\nt so, " COL.\nsel then reviewed the definition of public
::;el~ v an t a ;) found in bott"1 section 1 (1) of the Q.r::.Sl!:m_s.r.r.!p.J",Q.'Y e ~.~L_",~ 0 LL?...f= t L.Y~.f.~
B a I'" q cl.l:..D.l..DfI A l." t ,:\ 11 d sect.i, Coin 1 o'f the E.l-lbl..tL..2g,C~{..L~g."....Ji~,t;.. RE'ad together,
these st..~tl.ltory provisions contemplate an c:.~ppoi ntment to the sel~vice o.f
the CI~own Counsel empl"'ic3.sized that tl'ie grievor had never been so
i::\ppoi ntt2d, in an e>press fashion~ on the facts of this case 1'1e
sL.lbrnitted~ therefol~e, thelt tt"le gl~i evor could not be considered as an
employ'ee LlIldel~ the i nst.:i:mt collective agreement. Additionally, he
c\sserted that an appointment as a pLlbl i c SErvant, CI~ Dvm employee or civil
sel'''vant could not be inferred from the ci l~cLlmstances of the grievor s
employment F\e1.iC:\nce wc:\s placed on sections 8 1 (1) (2) en (in) and ( 11) of
.the F L\ b 1 ~ c S.er v j: C t':? St.atutS-'" Law Amendment Act. 1993 in sLlpport of t tOLL S
submission. These provisions have been repl~odLlced .:\bOV0'? Counsel noted
that the pl~ohibltion aqc:\i n~,;t such c.,n inference [:)ei nq d I'" c:wm \o'Jas deemed to
have come into f ol~ce on Decembel~ 18, 1991 , well be+ore tl-l~ decision tat: en
by D,o\1. mal~ not to hil-e the gr-i evor.
It was the Employer s position that the Un i cln cO!..II d not i nvo~: e
secticlri 18<::) of the CI,:own EIT]QJ.....Q.~es Co 1. 1 e c t i ::ilL B a 1':,,,9..s'llII i _1lQ.........".B,,!;..1. as a source
or foundc:\t i on for iUl~:i.~;diction That PI'''O\< i si on, in conjLlnc.::ti on trJi t Ii
~.:;E'c:tion 19, pl"ovi des arbi tr"at i on I~i ghts to employees, ad ch t i on cd, to those
under a collective agreement, in situations whet'''e they c1 <,.:\i m to have been
tJ
-- 13 -
rJi. s;c i p I i lied or d i smi sse!:1 without 'iLIst CF.lu=.e CI:Jun se 1 not€~d the\t. , fOI'-
puq)OS€'?~:, 0,1: tl'1e sti.':\tut<~~, emp 1 O'y Eile means II c:\ per"son employed in the S€ilJ'-V:i ce
of the Cr" O~\ln II as contf?fTlpl ated by the ~: L I J:"llJ:.J;__J;?,@.[ v i.,J;..Ig.,__.Eif;,,:t.. It Wi:!S his
5ubmi !ssi on that the' grievo'~ on trH? fi::\cts e~:;tat:llished, .:.Hld 5peci.fical1y
tH?CaUSe of the absence of an appoi ntmE~nt, could not pl"'opel~ I y cl<?:dm
emp 1 \,)yee stat:us 50 as to bl~ ent.L tIed tel ~?: el~c i se the I~ i ght~::; accol'-d€-?d by
section 18(2) of the Cr' 0 1t~Jl.."Em.ftLQ.:t.. ee ~J;:; 0 _U?c t i v"e Bar:"fL~_i-..D..i n q _..f!l;j;.
It: was; the Ernp 1 Olf21~ :s fLlI'''thel~ position .that the 9'.... i evol~, a 4- i:?l i.
,,,
mater"ial times, was an employee f i 1'''St of Par'nell and then, later-, of
Nut\'. i .t i em a1 COLlnsel al'-gLled that: , 'f r- om his per-spective, the folloV'~ing
'facts Sl.lppol~ted sLlch a conclusion
(1) the gr" i evor was init.ially hired to W01~~:. for F .:.I"'ne11 Foods
by Mr l'1i f SLId, a Par-ne,ll employee;
(j. :i. ) the gl~i evor was paid by Par-nel1 for- his se,"'vi ces and was
Llltima,tely ter-mi nated by that company ..:iLISt pr-i 01'" to the
e: pi 1'''Y 04: thei l~ cont,"'act;
<iii> the grievor was subsequently hired by Nutr-itional following
an i ntervi ev'J wi th two (2) of its representatives His
ter-ms of employment were documented for him in a 1 et tel~
fr-om Nutritional dated August .......,. 199<..> (e:-hibit 12) ;
...:,....,;. ,
(i v) the grievor was pcli d by Nutritional for his services and
\>"Jas pl..wportedl y terminated by them immediately prior to
the e pir-y of their- c:ontl~act ;
( v) the gl~ i evor p LlI~ sued his Worker-s' Compensation c 1 a.i m aE5 an
employee of NL.ltritional and that company tr-eated him e'lS
such for pur-po!:;es of the claim TI'1i s i nc 1 udecl the o'ffel~
crf al ten"late employment subseqi..tent to Dal mar' s: sLlccessful
.tencler' ; employee df
(vi) the gr-ievol~ per"cei verj that he was an the
subcontractoy"s In his i:.~ppl i c:ati on to Dalmar for
employment, he ci. tecl Far-nell and Nutl~i ti onal, and not
the Mi ni stn/, as his pas;t employers
(',;ii) Dal mi::l.Y" elected c-age:"d. nst hil"'ing the gr-i evol~ They-eaf: ter- the
grievor- dealt \.'Ji th MI'" Ivli 'f sud, as a n":?pl~esent<?:\t i 'va of
D a 1 fTl elf"" , in hi s ef f:ol~ts to seCLlr-e a \y ail ab 1 e WOI~~
Counsel submitted, on the above facts, that the gr- i evol~ s employment
l~el ati r.:lnshi p thr-ougho\..\t was with the subcontractor-s and not with the
Ministr-y, as claimed He argued that the ser- i. es of subcontr' act. s fOI'" the
.
- 14 -
supply of food ~:;er"vi ce~:; at the Gl..\el ph CDrl,oect i onal CEmt.n~ did nr.Jt. S~f:?I'''ve t.C)
C I" E! 2\ t. f? 2\n E~mp 1 oyment. I~ e 1. at: i on sf! i p bet.ween thE~ Mi ni !?;tJ"y anel E'mpl oy'e€:~s of
the SL.lbcQntl~'actol~ , !5uch as this gl'" i E?VOI'O In this I~eganj !I counsel
tn.:.\i nt,,\i ned that the abj,l i. ty elf I''/i ni. stl~y pf~r"st)nnel to or'dE~r the r E~t. UI~ n of
+oad -to the I. i tc:hen, or to have emp]. OY€~f?E"} of the S\..\bc:ontl~ i::'\c:tOI~ 1'- emo\lE?d
of I~ o III the i nsti t.ub. on .f 01" sec:ul'O i t Y 1'- ea son s, did not. tl'"'ansfonn such
emp 1 :Jyet-?s into emplOyees 04: th(f: l'1i l"1i stv"y Simply stc":\ted, it ..,Ie?! 5 thl;:"
t.hl'''U t of the Emp lOr el" s ar'gulTlent that cmy d. ghts the 91'- i evor might helve
po!;;sess€~d should more properly have been a~;sel~ted against the
subcontractors rather than the Crown
Counsel ~l with respect to the second ground, sLlbmi tted that tl"H? Union
should be estopped from argui.ng it possessed bargaini.ng I'-ights in respect
(::>f ,food service stc.~ff at the Guelph Corr-ectional Centre at the time
1iIi:\tel'o i .::\1 to this disput.e He r'el i ed on t.he decision of the Ontal~ i 0 Labour-
h.elations Board dated December 7, 1992 which has been mentioned earlier in
tl',i s award. COLlnsel argLled that the aforementioned decision determined
that the collective bargaining relationship, as it then e isted, was
between tile UFCI;JU and Nutritional He noted the Board found that OFSEU
1'''lac:! i:":\banc.1oned any ban;jai n ng I~iqht;; it me-IY have had l".je f urthel~
iTlcd ntr.:\i nE'd that the Boal~d I~e 'iected OPSE:U s claim to trl, effect ti'"i<:lt the
(:?mp], 0 )"ef?~:; then:~ in question wer-e encomp.:."issed by' its collective agreement
with l"lanagement BDc.~rd of Cabinet Elr- i E.f 1 y stated, cOI_lnsel asser'tE'd that
the L2~bour F,el ati ons BCJaJ~d had rej ect.(~d the suggestion that OPf3EU \-'J a !:~
"lin~ed" t.o t.he employees of Nutl~itional Management Services In view of
that BOi:lr-d s +:i.ndinlj, it was submi tt€~d that OFSEU should not be pE?I~mi t t(,?d
to I~el i ti gate, in this proceeding, t.he iSSUE as to their bargaining I
I
I
..
- 15 -
st.:":\tus I w.::\ S L\I~ ~.F2 c:l to conclude that t.J"',e doctl'" i ne 0+ i r::;sLlt:~ e~;toppel We\ :>
app 1 i. Ci:\t) 1 e in the c j. r"c:umstances and the\t, ac c Ol~ cl in 9 1 't , t 1'1 E~ Un ion was nClt
fre~? to claim i. t was the bargaining c'~(]E~nt c:lllr" i ng the 1"'e1 €-?v2\r"lt pel'" i ad The
e::twi:trd in Q.E~~g1L_._\.1:..J,E..2Effi n ) ., T()()47/88 Wi:l.S I'-E'l i ed on in sUPPoY'.t of thi. S
pasi t:i. tIn Finally, counsel noted t 1"\ i:."lt the grievol~ ne\, el~ PUI'" sLled h:i. f:5 clE:\i.m
through OPSEU until i:\ftel~ July 1.r:79"":!' !' whj. cll was some ten (in) mont.hs aftl'2r
he ceasf.,?d wor~ing fcw Nutr'i 'U onal I ndl'2f."'d, he i:.'\J'''gued th.::lt the!'"'e was no
evi. ...Jenc::e befclr-e in€-? to i ncJ:i. cF.l,te v--Jh et I"', E~I~ th,j, S c;; 1'0 i e ,/01'. had E'\/er bec:orne a
membelr. of OFGEU
The Emp 1 oyer' rf?1 i ed on sub st.::m t i all y the same al~guments to iSuppor"t
it. s mCjt ion for" non 'sui t In SUmmc.H" Y, counsel submitted thC\.t there was no
evidence to establish a pl~ i rna facie case thi:'\t the grievOl''' was an emp 1 c)yee
of the Mi. n i str"v FUI'-thel~ , it was argued t.he Union held f eti 1 ed to lead any
evidence that IrJOLll d support the e el~c i se of the F"f.:?medial jurisdiction of
tree Grievance Settlement Board
On the basis of all o.f tt.e ar'guments pl"'eE:;ented~ I was as~ed to
dismiss the grievance on jLll"'isdictional gl"'ollnds or pLlrSl.lant to trle grant
of U"le non-sLli t mot:i. on
In I~esponse, couns!o:,;,l for the Union d:i. sputed the sl.Igc.::jf:'sti em that his
client \r~as, in '5ubsti::\nce!, at.tempting to re.l it i gate the very issue decided
I
pl"'evi DllSl y by the Ontar'io Labour f;el ::\tioris Board He stated that the
pi'" i DI'- decision addr"E,s:sed t.he qUEstion c'\s to \!\Ihi ch Union had the l~i ght to
1'''epl'-('?Sent Ule b ':Ir"qaining unit def i nE:c:f i.n the application fOI~ cel'''ti f i ca'li on
.f i 1 ed by the UFCWU He contl~asted such question wit.h the one which he
t:; t a t~ (,?cl WEtS nDl^i bef one th:i.s Vic:t'~ Chai I~!l nam!;?lv, the (",mp 1 oymen t ;:;tatLls of
the grievor vis a vis thE! Mi ni st,ry CDunsel submitted, in this regard,
.
Co
- 16 -
that thf:? L.:,=,tJoUJ~ l;t~l"~tiDns B <:) '::11'- cj dec:ision I-'J<:\S not, di ::.pD!;si'l:lV0? of thE:'
quest.ion i:t =; tti w h i:':'~ t '''', e 1'- the gl~ i. eVOI'-, at. C:'\,ll mEt, t E'Y- j, 1;;11 tim(:?s~ Wo:IS in of F.),c::t ell'.
€~IllP 1 c:ryee o'f the l"Ii ni st:I'''Y II + y-orn a 1 abCJL\lr' 1'''e12Iti ons po:i.n :1 f v :i, (:?~'J" He"
sLlggl-;?sted therE was a need to "1001. el sewhel'-E,II i r" cl'''d(~I~ to I'" raseJ 1. ..../E! this
:I. i:.~.t: t (~Y" 1 sr:~L.e F,'''om h:i.'s peY-f::;pec::ti \/\::?, the doc:t,'''i ne D'f ::':.)L.t (.:.~ e tc)ppE~l IrJ :~
. , '1' t 1 given Hat tl'''le L.. E\i::) ClU/'" Pel cl,ti, ons Boar'd h<i:ld onl I "ti~ng€'!!nt - 'I "
'!.ni:\pp.,lc::a.J e <:\ l. J, Y
::..\ddlr' eS5s(:'!!d" the ql..~"'St: i cm of t:;:'mp 1 CJ t III En t status
CCjun ~,;e 1 f i")l?"" t:. I''', E Un 1 (Jr'l , 1.n E\I~gument. spent ;::on~;J. df:'~l~"..\bl e time and
e.f.f Dr.t e am ning v ay" i au 5 pl'''ovi si ems .f DLlnd i roO) the foIl owl ng documentss
(:i. ) Gui del i. nes For- Food Se/-vi c::e Staf f-'Guel ph COI'-recti Oil ell Centre dc\te;'d
Septt~mber " 199"" ( e>: Ii i bit 2) ; (i i) Tender' For Management Of The Food
,
S(.,)r- /i c:e Py-agra,m by Nutr tian.::ll l"lanagement Services da,ted July ,..,-r 1990
..:.. ,::. ,
I~ 2' hibit 3) ; (iii) F,equest FOl~ Quot:ation dated June 2~f 1..ilQ'2 and
Invitation To Tendel~ For- The Food Sey- vi c::e PI'-'ogr- am At The Guelph
Cor-r-ec:tional Centl-e (e hibit 5) ; and Agreement Between The t1i rd. s.tel~ Of
Can-ec:t i Dnal Ser'vi ces and Dal mc~l- Foods. Limited dated August 21., 1992
(e hibit 6) . Counsel a~::;ser-ted that the subcontr-ac:ts. i rh'Dl vi ng Nutr-i ti ana.!.
and~ 1 <",tel'- ~ Da 1 mi:il~ wer'e "i r-tLt.:\ll y indistinguishable In hi$ war'cls, there
Voi ;:\ s. "c:ontj,nuity in the nat:ur-e of the documenti:ition" He n at E~C"J t I :I'\:: thE'
f pol
sl..\bc:ontl~ actDr s wer-e l~eqL\i re;.d then=?i n to conf onTI to l t.he c i. E'S
-
pr-Dcedul-es and I'-equl C:iti ons of the l'iinistr-'y as set out in the abo\i i:2
documents. Counsel sugge~.;ted :' on the basi. s of his e ami n':lt.i on of ~t-Ie I
(? hibits, that the Mi f", i 5t/~ Y contn:lll ed neC:II~ 1 y all asp0.~cts D'f tl"'le Food
Sel-\f i c:es FI'''ogl-am He ,=,ubmi t ted that this amoLmted to II substanti e\l
ovey-r-i dinc] control by the institution of the SUPpo!:;f:?d employe02s of 'thf2
I
subcontract.or" In substance, he ar gued that the Mi ni. st,...y e ercised
~
I
I
.
- 17 -
,I f:~f f €~c: t :i, ve contl"'ol" OV(~I'" theE;E? emp 1 oyeF.;'E:; and that, a"" a conE;equE?nCe, i. t:
..:>
was t. h (:-' r'eal emp 1. C)y(':~r- :for" ial1 but pay I~oll p LlI" poses The Union n<1. i ed on
the foIl clwi. n<;;) dE?ci~:;ions 0+ the Ontario Labour F~el i:\ti ons BClal~d in SLlppOJ~t
Cjf this pos:ltion I..s:.EI\ m ~t,.g.r.:..2..!..__ L 0 c .E_L~! '-7 _Y.'!!'_.t~._..t1 C!.r.:..:LJ~.~IJ_ a 9..iE\ . L. :l m i t.?- d , 1248 8",~-
U (jvlay 1, 198-:r, Howe) , e,~.r..:'i.J...!;'f~,__gffiP.J. o,:-i_~ e ~__..ll.ltf:?LIJ..~ t ~:..,p..!J.~_LJJ.Dj...QI1., ~::.9_c;;..~L ~ u"L...Y..?..
1:..:..!@l::.u:.~!1~_g..Y.._,.....J:.9.g.9,.f.? ..Lr:LC;.~_~-L.s'~J._~.!' 1909-8:::; -"U, 1910 83-F, (Burk~?tt); Hot. e 1 _..€!fl,LG.]..J:,\.!;!,.
1~;.!Ilp"J:."Q..'i.,~,~..:.s._.,..._"...J}D"LgEL , 6:9 c ~~,L__...~.2,?_.,~_....,_~u t t...Q.D..._........ELacJiL_,tiqJ e 1 _j;~.!:...-..~J;...!'__, 1 EL5.... 79--R
( OctDiJer 1 , :I. 98( , F Pi ChE21~)
For the r<:2\SOnS stab:d in trle above paraql~aph, I was as~ed t: Cj .find
that. the gri evol" ~'\Ias an employee of the Mi n i stl~Y at all ma.tel~i al t j, mes
commencing fl~om 1'115 date of hire in May 1990. Counsel emphasized that
t.his St.c:ltus predated the deemed effective date of HIe F'Llbl..i,L,_ 5er\(1-<;e.
St_atLI.te ._Law ,_-B.!!!",l';'!ndment Act, .L9N, this being December- 18 1791
,
Consequently, in his submission, the p I~ oh i bit ion contained then?i Ii would
be inapplicable here as, in 1 aw, the gl~i evol~ already possessed the status
of an employee as of such c1C:lte COLlnsel claimed tha.t, in view of such
~5t at LI~.:;, the sub!5equent change in bargaining agent was i I~rel evant to the
I~esol ut ion of this case. In his judgment, the wI~ongf L\l d i SI1\i sSc:d, occurred
when the !Vli Ii i stJry I~e+used tl.J 1 et the glri 6"'/01'" 1~6't.urn to wDrk at the Guelph
COI~n?~ct. i onal Centre (
!
In n:?ply, counsel for the Employer noted the Union did not advanc(:
the cH-gument befon? the Ontario Labour F\elations Board t.hc:~t t!'ie
subcaritl'- act or' s' emp 1 cjyee~; WE:-"?I'-e, ln .fact, CI~ own emp 1 oYE:)es. Indeed, he
suggested that., at t.hc\t juncture t.he F)oal'-d would not have been able to
c)1~d(~I~ (':':\5 i'l: did i 'f the elnp 1 oyees; I;<Jer- (~ actual 1 y CI"'CWJri employees He al~:>CJ
c\l~gued thc\t the time per i ad mater i al to tr'\i s case was in August 1992 when
-~ --------- - --- --
,.
\)
- 18 -
the gl'''i eVOI"' W,:;\S5 tf21'''mi natf.?d by f\jLltl~i ti anal and not hil'''ed by Dal mi::\!".
COLIn se) 1 I'''e iected the Union s assert.ion t.hat this di SPl.ltE:~ should be
l~e!:501 Vf2d on the bc::t~:,;i:5 the gr'i (.;?vor.. W,::\f.5 an empJoyee o'f the l'1i n i ::;tl~'y as 0'(-
l'1ay 1.990 He subm:t tt.ed that the <;}r i eVCJr ,- employment situation was
.::>
distingui ;;habl~:-? 'fr"om the c i I~CUm!stance:5 i dent :i, 'f i f.?d in the dec:i S,L ons c i tf?J
by the Union
The dec i ~3i on 0.( the On tar" i 0 Labour Fiel ~71t.i ems Board r"el,:ati ;g to t.hf2
LJFCWU S "'.lppl i cat ion for certif c8.tion is one hundl"ed em d t h iI'" t y'-f ('jUt-. (134 )
p'::lges in length. It addr'esses the issues J~ai sed in a compJ'-ehensi v'l::?
fashion The following paragraphs of the decision provide the backgroLtnd
and contE? t of that dispute
II"":!' One o.f the trlings that I'1CS mLlst do i s pl~ovi de food .for the inmates
-'.
It may do this either by using its own employees, or by engaging a
sLlbcontl~actor to pl~ovi de on site food s(:?rvi ces In each of these
applications the WOI~ t: er s affected at-e employees of a sLIl:lcontractor t.rlat
has beE:m engaged by the MCS to opel~ate what it descl~ i bes as its "Food
Ser"vi ces Program II The MCS . .-l- tenders, and the food services
lnVl...es
contl~act i s awal~ded to the successful bidder
4. What is at issue B.t eac!-I of the four locations al~e the collective
bal~gai ni ng rights of the food sel~\li ce employees wor~: i ng for tl."le
subcon+':'r.' clctors, and the rights of the unions claiming to represent them
More spec'Lfically, \.-\Ie al~e asked to determine
(a) ~^lhic:h lHi i. on i.s entitled to r'epresE':!nt the wor~:~'rs at each
location; and ~;
\ b) the 18ga1 f c)undat ion of those b~:lF"gc~i ni ng l~ights '~c:el'''ti 'F ,I. c2"lti on
under the b~Q9~L K~1~1i9n2-B~t, a collective ag I"'Efemen t binding
undel~ Ule b.~l OI..lC.-E e 1".S\!;j. QD,,~L.B.~ t,., or pl~e-e: i st i ng OFSEU bargaining
r. i ghts e tended to the subcontrac:t.CJI~ and its employees by a
II CI~ Ov-H'I 1"1''' an s'f el~ II )
5. OFSEU ,::isserts that it has the right to repr"esF:?nt these war kE-?rs
because, In each instance, there has been a transfer of an "underta~: ing"
within the meaning of the C I'" 0 W n T r_Sl.!J,,2.f~ r s ...B"c;:..1.., with the l~esLll t that the
subccmb'''ac tOI~ IS bound to recognize OFSEU 5 collective agn:?ement and
bargaii r.'li rig ri ghtS5 OFSEU aS5sel'''ts tha.t on the tl'" ansf el~ of a pal'''t of thE:?
Crown 5 Ltndel~ta~ i ng to an employer'" II J. n the private sector" (i.e. an
employer covered by tt'\e Labour Eel a-l::i o[ls ..B.~t) !' OFSEU s bargaining rights
follow automatically and attach to the employees of the subcontractor. On
..
.
Q
- 19 -
OFSEU s a""I.;;\1 ysi 5, the wishes of the emp]. DyeE.~f.;; c.'1I'''e i 1'''I'''e1 t:~vant What L C:l\..ln t ::;
is t.hc:\t they al'''e doing "WOI'" ~ " cLlstomarily pel~f Qf'med by civil sey"vallt.s~
:~nc:l , i 1'''1 OFSEU r." sutlmi ssi em, tha\t 1 <". sufficlent to est.3bl i sh OF'SEU s riqht
:::> . .::>
to I'" epl'" E.'sent them, pLlr's~UF.lnt to the ~)..:..g.~.!:L T Ir..,,@ S '(gr,:,-,,,,,6 c t
6 But ",d: three of the institutions - !V!,;:\P 1 f=~hL\lr' S t, Mety"o Wf:?st, c~nd Guelph
the lJFCW has olr'ganized what it .:\ssel~t.s welr'e uny" ('?prE!sent.ed employees
The lJFTW f?nY" 011 eel thDsf? empl (jyeef.:; i nte:l mc~mbeJ"'!:'~h i p at a t :i. m(~~ when or: SEU ~'" a s:;
not 011 the s;cene, and clai.ms trle\t i. t i. s €.?nti t led to c el" t i of i c c't t i on as the
(:2Jnp 1 0 ef~S bar"gi::d. n i ng cH]ent
. . . . . . . . . .
(] ~~U.E'.lQJ::LSOI~ I e_c t i on".J2!?n t Jr' €. (Guelph)
PJ"t the Guelph Con'''ection Cf::mtl~e , the subcontl~actol~ is ti u t !:.Lt_L9.n a t
1'1 a fl a ~.IT!.i?' n t:...-p..!?:J:.Y.i c ~.a ("N\.ltri ti onal") On Apr i 1 19, 1991 the UFCW filed an
application for" cel~'l:i of i cat ion see~; i ng to l~epresent all employees of
Nutritional i.n Guelph - \i'Jh i ch would include those wod i ng at the Guelph
Cor-rec:ti Oil e'l 1 'Centr~e In support of that c:er.tification application, the
UFCW filed membership cay"ds on behal f of all t.hose whom it. c12d med wel'''e
employees working for- N\.Itl~i ti onal (i. e one hLlndred pel- c~mt member-ship
SUPPOlr.t) Nutritional does not oppose this cer-tification appl i cati on; so,
in this case, the only impediment to the UFCW s certification is OP3EU s
i ntf:~rvent ion As at Jvli;;\p 1 eh LU~ s t , OF'SEU asserts th~\t when the subcontr-actor
,,- heJ~e Nub'''i ti onal - signed its agreement with the Cl'''own then;? was a Cl~ own
tr' ansf el"', so that NL\tJ~itional i nhed. b~d the Civil Ser-vice c01.1ective
agr-eement that OF'SEU had with the Cro\i'Jri Again, ther-e is no evidence that
any of the employees in question al"'e member-s of OPSEU, or that OPSEU has
ever pr-eviously purpor-ted to r-epresent them (see i nfl~a) Once again, UFCW
claims that there has been no "tr ansf er" of an "undertaking" to which the
Crown Tl~ansfers Act applies; and, everl if there was, OFSEU has long ago
abandoned its bar-gai.ning J~i ghts
I:} MCS operates some .H.H:y cOl~n:?ct i onal ins t i b"l"c i on s ac:r-oss the
Pr-ovince Cater-ing ser-vices are "contracted out" at nine i.nstitutions -
including the f CJL\r her"e LInde/'"' n:.-?vi e~'" At the I~emai ni ng institutions, .food
sel~vi ces i:':\r-E! pr-ovided directly by l'iCS I..lsirg :i. ts own E'rT)ployees Those
{~mp 1 oye€0S al~e civil ser-vants, repre~:;ented by OF'SEU, and b9L1nd by the Civil
Sel~vi c:e collective agreement Civil servants customal~i 1 y do the ~ i nd of
wor ~ nOvJ being done bl the r-espondents ~~mp 1 oyees pLlY"SUant to thei ,.-
commer-cial cont.l~act. with the Crown
:/. () ,!:it the four i nsti t ..lti ons in\- 01 Vf'Jd in these proceec.1i ng~s, catel~ i nq
services have been contI'" acted out fOI~ many years to ...., al'. i OLIS food
sub cont!'.. ac::t Dr s. Thel-e is no evidence that, at these 1 oca.t ions, food
ser-vices have ~er been pl~ovj. ded by t'1CS employees r-epresented by OF'SEU
. . . 1
12 The subcontractors have changed fl~om ti me to time in accordance with
the competitive bidding process to which we have already ref eY"Jr'ed. There
.
.
- 20 -
is no pat t.m"li Sometimes t.hat cat.el'''er will be able to SLICCE'ssfull y ~ eep
the contl'"ac:t of ()Jr' several yec'lrs. Somt:?t i mes thF::!re is more -ffequent
chi:..ngeover" Somet.imes t.he sl.lbcontractcll'" is 1I un i on i Z E':!d 1I , lU:e Farnell
SClmE?t i ITtE~S it i ~:; not In all casE~s, the subc:ont 1'- ac tOI'" selects i.ts own
emp 1 oYF.!es to del i. ver the s(?rvi ces it has c:ontl~acted to Plr'ovi de And, not
cmly i~? thel~e no evidence that. these st~rvi ces have ey~r:.. 1::H~en pl'''ovi ded by
l"leS E~mp 1 DYf.'~eS at these 1 ocati ons, but ov(;?y' the yeclr s, OF'SEU h<.:\s lJ..~vgr.
assr.?rtecj thii:\t the emp 1 oy€:,>es o.f any of these sub c on t I~ ac: t or ~:;; weJ'''e I~eall y
11 CI'"OWI1 f:?mp 1 oyees 1I , or- that the sub c on t r' ac t Clr- s were II Cl~OWIl agencies" 01'-
that OF'SEU r c:'!pl'-f:?s(~n ted any 0'(- these wor ~ ~?r- ~s pUI,nsuant to th~? pl,novi si ons of
the Crown Transfers Act Ol~ other-wi. se SLlbC:Olltr'actor-s have c::hanqed and
._......~~..._......-....._.....__.._-_.~------------ ,
c?mp 1 (J y ees 11av'e come and gone, but (JF'5EU 1'1as nevel~ b e.f 01''' e asseJ"'tecj
bc\r'g,,:d ni ng I~i ghts
:I." A'I: i r"Jsti tut ions I'Jh el'" e MCS does not c.on t I'" ac t out c a'l:el'" i n9 f~(~~I'-\/i c:es,
I'1CS emp 1 OY'5 P el~ son s:, who per'form v il.-tuc\ll y identical job d\..U. es, and ell'ne
emp 1 oyeci in the Si::\me job classifications i:.o\S the indiv'iduals employed by
F al"'nell elr- Nutrn i t i on,:\1 OPSEU has had a call ecti. ve agl~eement wi.th the
Cr-clwn cont :i. rluousl y since 1 en? . This collective agreement applies to a
bargai ni ng L\n i, t coveJ"'ing the whole of the Ontar i 0 F'L\b 1 i c Service,
e: cluding only illdividuals specified in section 1(1)(+) of the g,r-o~n
Emp 1 ove~~9..U ec1;i ve Bar-oainino Act The bar-gaining unit includes wor-~er5
employed by I'1CS to pl~ovi de catering services at the cOI'''rect i onaJ.
insti.tutions wher-e those services are not pr'ovi ded by an outside
subcontractDl'"
14 Officers of the OF'SEU locals a'!-' the .fouJ'" i ns.ti tut ions her-e in issue,
have had knowledge of the contracting of catering services at thei J~
instituti.ons throughout the period for- which those ser-vices have been
contracted However-, as we have all~eady mentioned, OFSEU never sought to
l'''epreseilt the employees of the subcontractor-s engaged from time to timE'
OFSEU neveJ'" sought to bargain on behalf of those employees, alld never-
sought to apply its cc)11 ect i ve agreement to those employees. ClPSEU nevel~
sought t.o or-ganize them, Ol~ enr-011 them into membership in OFSEU or c~pp 1 y
fc)l~ certificat:ion OF'SEU never- J"'aised any legal claim to be their
bat-gai ni ng agent These wor'l-: ers weJ"'e either- LlIIJ"'epr-esented Ol~ \i'JeJ~e
l~epJr't?sent.ed by a tl'''ade union other than OFSEU Thei J~ teJ"'ms and conditions
of emp 1 oymer", t were determined ei thei~ by . I . i duC':',l bar-ged. n i ng with thei r"
1n01
err p 1 OYC72r- , Ol~ collective baJ"'gaining through a bar"g2"\i ni ng 2\gent other thar',
OFSELJ I
. . .
16 To put theSE"2 i SSLles in furtheJ'" pel'''spect i ve we should note trl2,t the
\i'jor- k t-:?I,n S pJ"'oviding .food sel~vi ces a+' Guel prl were once J~t:::!pl~esented by the
,-
UFCW - the same union which now seeks to r-epr"esent the Nub" it i onal
employeE'S c ul'"l~ en t.l y wor ~d ng a.t GUE'21 ph That hi StOI~y pl~ovi des an
:i. ntel'"E'st i ng bad dir.Op foJ'" the CL\rr'ent pr'oc::eed i ngs, because i. t involves the
e ern c: i ~se of I~i ghts under the Labour- ~.e 1 ~.t.i.J.:;?n.EL__f.ic t at one of the loc:aticlf1s
where OF'SEU now seeks to precl L\de the same e:.: erc i se of rights
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-----
, .
Q
- 21 -
~, 1 ThrCIL\ghQL~t the c.C'}ur'E,e of t.hese E'vents~ no one macle .my L-!l.pP 1 i Ci::\t. ion
un d E!l" , or- r-efen?ncef.;; to, the r;;: l~ .Q~.!J..._.I.!:.:.~l!:! s.:L.~lC~L.B,,~~:'.:t OPSEU too f no Pc.~I'''t 11"1
c\ny \.:>f t.hese pY-oc:e('~di ngs (C!:11'''t i of i. Ci:..t ion, SLIC C f.?oSSOI'"' r i q r'J t s) ~ al thou(~h
notice of tl"lem woul d h.:.ive b f.'?f.?n poS">t:ed on the pl'''f:?mi Sf.?S of the institution
PJcc:oy"di ngl y, UFCW s pr'esent c:: elr' t if i c: C:l. t:. ion app 1 i Cii:lt. ion can be vi ewec! as an
(,?'ffor.t to I~e-establ i sh barged. n right!:'5 si mi 1 <3Y" to thDS:;E~ which it fH?l d some
Yf-~cWS ago ,,- albE.it, in I~espec:t of the employees of a differ'ent
~::.ubc::(~)r'\tl'''ac:tC)r' . Thus, UFCllJ &.5:;k!::" r-hetor'i c.:\11 I, "wher'e wc~::;; DF'Sell" !I and " IrJh,/
di. d i.t never seek to r-epr-esent \i'JOI'" ~: er s whom i. t now claims to have
ir'epr'esented c.-'ll 1 .:\1 or"lgr~11
Ultimately:, the Boar- d found t 1'''1 at , in the c i I~cumstances of the c<::\se, or':'SEU
had abandoned C:lny I'''i ghts undel~ the kilP 0 J..l y:._lj e ~.E t i_Q.lJ_s A c: 1. th.:\t it may have
had by I i I~.t ue o.f the G..r::....q\<'Jrl T - A t rhe Boal~d stated i .ts conclusion
,,::" an s f. f:~.r:.2___J;:''::'"
in the following terms
"We find that there is no bar to the threE? UFCW certification
applications now befor-e LIS, because ther-e is no sLlbsisting
collective bar-gaining relationship or collective agreement
cover-ing the employees of the respondents t 0 ~'ojh i c: h the UFCW
applications relate ArlY bargaining rights which OFSEU might
have had, or- might have been able to assert, have long since
been abanclont?d II
(paragraph 2~~.J )
On the basis of t.his finding, the Ontar-io Labour F\elations Board gr-anted
bar-gai ni ng rights to the lJFCWU in r-espect of NutY"i ti onal ,." employees 3. .1..
~ c: ...
the Guelph Con"Ectional Centl~e , save and e cept managers and persons above
the rank of manager-
The <::\bove dE;2c i si on clearlv dt:?tf:?nni rled t.hat OPSEU did not have ar'IY
<
bargc.ii. n i ng rights in respect of the employees of Nut'~itibna\ WOI~~: i ng in
the food sf:~r"vi CE~S pn::lgl~am at~ the Centr-e. Si mi. 1 al'''l Y, the Ontar-io Labour
F-:el .:..ti OriS Boal~d ('''e i ected the Union c' assertion that these employees wel"'e
-'
f?nCOmpa ,:;sed by its collective agreement with \"\anagement Boal~d of Cabinet
OF'3EU did not ':\1': qui. r- e such l'-i.ghts, and t. j- at collect.ive agl~eemerlt did not
become opel~ati ve~ until at least J ul y lSl9:::: wl'''len the Mi ni s:;tr-y elected to 1
dispense with subcontractor's and took over- the food services progr-am
'.~
.
- 22 -
d :i. 1'" ec t 1 Y Simply put, t.he BCli::lI~d -found th.:.'1t. the appl i C.:.~bl (2 collective
bal"qaining r-el i::1.U. onsh i p ItJe\S between l\Iutl~iti(Jnal , as Ernp 1. Cly(;~'r-, .::!nd the
UFCWU, .:":'IS; Unicln It fC:lllows, in my 'iudqrnent, that DF SE:LJ did not h",\ve thf?~
l'''equi si t.e status t.o c: h c:-\J. 1 en 9 e ei theJ~ Nutl~i ti cmal s termination of the
(;;.11''' i eVOl~ 01" Di::\l mc:~r" f.~; subsequent J~f?-fusal to hir"e him at the timf7:! thCl~;;e
dE~ci si. ons IrJerue mc:\de Sub -j ec: t to thE~ Union s argument c:onc:er-ni. ng the
degr"ee of cc:mtn:ll I~('?tai. necl by the l"lini 3tr"l and tl-Ie implic:ations al~if::;'Ln~J
theruef r-om, it i c: difficult to see hO\,\1 the Union coul c.1 i mp,r'ove i t. f.'~ PCjS tion
i:'\nd acqui I'"e such st""tus simply th,r'ough the pass.::l<.;:)E o.f: timE, especiall,!,
given the fact thad: the gl''' i ev Ol~ , Llrll i j. e the Dal m.:\I~ employees, was never
for-mally appointed to the service of the CI"'own
The Uni. on, as noted, J~el i. E'S On the decisions of the Dntario Labour
ReI at i ems Boal~d in L... M ~..L.-1: a n a d fi......k..:!:J.!1..i 1;.gQ.; j-:',~'1D..~~.od.9-Et.._I r~; and S \,;\ t 1::...C2!l
flace Hotel. These decisiolls, generc:\ll y, set out the c: I~ iter i a which that
Board considErs helpful in deter-minillg which of two (or mOI~e) entities lS
the employer fOI~ pLlI~p05es of the bEtl;!."Q.b1 I'" ReI Cl.ti on5 f'.k:t The reI ev ant
c:riter-ia include the follo\i'Jing
1 the pal~ty e Erc i si. ng d i I'''ect i on and cont.rol over the employees;
2 the pii:\r..t V bear i rig the burden of r emL.lnel~ at ion;
the pc~l'''t:.y i rnpCls.i I"1g c-Jiscipline;
4 the parut.y, hi I'''i ng the emp1o/ees;
c:- the party with authority to di smi 55 tl-'Ie emp I 0)-' ees; ,
..J
6 the p,,~rty who i s pel~cei vf2d to be the employer- by the elnployees;
I
7 the e i stellcE' of clri int.ention t.o cr-eate the r'elc:\tionship of
emp.l Qy'f?Y" and emp 1 oy€~e
Ac" statf2d in t..:...J.:1prt uC{3nacJa L),.JTli i~d_, "the cc:\ses have genel~all y not:. c\ssi qned
-""
e\nY pal~t i c\..\lc\l"- ol~del~ of p r" i ClI~ it Y to those factors, but I'''athel~ have tended
t:o indicat.(;: that the vH'?i ght to be given tel e""c:h fi'=\CtOr- mLlst de?pend upon
the facts elf each case" However, it is clear that tr'le Boal"'d has attached I
I
considerable 5i gni.f i cance to "over"riding" or- "fLlndamental" con.trol in
~
I .
.
- 23 -
mi::\~: i ng :i.ts cI et er' m i I"l e\ t i. CWI
As indic:atf.?d pl~ev:L (::Jusl Y!' C:ClunsE-?l few the Un i em n::~" i E!V'JE~d the t 0?1l d 0?1'"
and c::onty"actual d ClC l.lmen t. s E:-!'v i clenc i. ng t.1-le Ir'el at.i onshJ. p bc-:!tlrJeen t.he
SL\bc on tl'" ac: t c;J1~ S and the Mi ni f.;tl~y On the b;::\ ; l...- o.f ~:;L\ch ,,.. (.:~ " i (-?vJ , I ~1j2lS:; a f.5 I. ecJ
J. .~
to -find that the Ministr'y e el- c: i s;ecl "E-ffec:ti ve" ,;:lnd "substElr'lti c:~l
ovel'-r i di ng II contr'oJ. o I(S'J'" the smploY0?eS of the sub c on t)''' ar..: t OJ''' c;\nd, few tlJ2\t
l~eC:\son ~ was in fact and 1 c."\w thei 1- empl Dt'er' It is interesting to note
'that the Ont :":\\''' i C) Lc:\boLlI~ hf:21i::\tion!::; Boa cl ei"'lgaqec:i in a s:i.milar- E? el'''cisl;.7! ....Jher.'
consi del~i rig the UFCWU application If-<=" I~evi ew oi- the tendel~ and c:ontrElct
-=>
dC'.\cument s is;; found bet\A/E-en par'agr"aphs 31 to 53 of the dE~c i si on The Boar-d
made the following observations
"54. It \l-ii 1 1 be seen that the c:ontr-acts heJ'''e in i SSLle ar'e really "labour
only subcontracts" - i en , whC:lt the subcontl~ e\c:tOI~ SLlppl i es is the services
of its employees~ whose actLlal duties al~'e prescribed in minute detail by
the Crown~ and whose acti',:i. t.i es on the job a.re subject to the oven'" i ding
authority of the super i ntEendent of the cor-r-ectional institution. T.... is
... ...
difficult to see what else the subc on tl~ ac:t or- really brings to the bargain
Similarly~ it lS difficult to resist the conclusion that what the Crown
obtains fr'olTl these e\r"r angelTlent s is "labour" - possibly (thoL\gh not
necessar-ily) at cheapel'" rates than it would be obliged to pay CiVll
servants doing the same jobs, and \l'Ji thout the 1 egal obligations~ whi Ct-I as
their- "employer", the Cr-own WDL\ 1 d other"\l-ii se have to assume. FI~om the
employee perspective~ they do the same wor~ as ci.vi.l servants but don t
have the same salar"y, bellefits or" secLlri ty;; but, by the sa-me token~ tllel
might have no warl. at all if the Jobs clctucd 1 y wer.e done by Cro\l-Jr:
emplwyees TI-lei t- emp]. CJyel~ S:;. bUSl nes-;s niche 1 i (2,,; in pr"ovi di ns.~ serVlces
thcxt other" employers -. hE::,'-e the C I'" C.1V~ n ..- do not want to pr-ovide fot-
themselves \I'd th thei I~ employees <
01'" o\l~n
!
. . . . . . . . . . .
59 On the other" hand!. ther"e is no evi demce that the Cr-O\l-iIl hi:ls ever
e ercised, OJ~ sougrlt to e er"cise, any of the authority typi ca.ll y
associated with the statu5;; o.f II emp 1 oYE'r" II (hil~ing, +i.l~ing, pr"omot.i. on,
dil~ecting employees in their- \l'Jor' ~ ~ et.c ) Thelr'e i. s no direct control of
t.his ~ind Nor does tl',e Cl~own pay the emp 1 oyeeS'> wages, <at least
lJi r'ectl y) , <::Jr deal \l-Ji t.h such melt tel'''s as wot'''~: (er compf?nsati on, unemplovment
insurance, income t.a ~ f:!tc And, as \l'le h,,:\'ve all~ead y mentioned, no or-ie
al'''Ques in these cases that the food ser'vi.ce worl. ers nomi lI.::lll y employed by
the sLlbcontl~actor ar"e~ in 1 c::~w, "employees;;" of I'1CS ~ or that the nature of
the relationship be.tween MCS and thE.' subc:cmtr actol~ makes the latter~ in
I ..
0'
- 24 -
1 ,,~w, i-::\ "CrDwn iiH.J f?n c: y" . . . .
.
"~u7 Vi I'''tuall y f?Ver" y aspect f,,)f' the c')perati on is prf?SCF'i bed in mi nutf:?
detail Olr' is ~5ub 'j ect to the d ii'" ec t ion and c:ontl~ol of MCS The fir-ms aJ~e
not jL.1St: given t.he use of the MCS tools, equipment, ki tchf?ns, c c:.,\.f et el'" i .::\
of ac i J. :i. ties and f~ (.Jod , thE'Y 2l1'-e told pr'ecisely what. to do wit.h them, and how
to do i't: Th i ~:;; 1 '". not. a II con t1'- ac t. i r1rJ R.h:rr. " but. r" at.her- a "contl'''ii:\ct i ng i 0.." ,
..~
wh er' elJ y thE) food ser'vi ce fil'''fCi is enlist.ed t.o pl'-ovi de, in it.s tot:al i ty, .:::-\
COJ'"e function o'f: the under"tal. :i. ng uf:~i ng the equi prm~nt supplied by the CI~own
to the "cust.omers" def i. ned by Ule Clr' own - that is why it must be I'''egul ated
in such dE~t.~i 1 ~I using the tool::,;, equipment, and even the food p\'"(;,?scr" i bE-?d
by MC!3 Whi:\t hi:ts happetled her-e, is th"'lt the .food =;el~\' ice of j. I'" m has been
pelr'mi tted to ti~~ e O\lel~ and r'un i':\ cohel"'ent !I identifiable "Pdl'''"\: " of the
i nsti tuti c:m a ccmEtell ati on o.f -Functions t;'9_9 e t 1J...~.!:._._..J.::!ij:JJ. many of the
essential i nstl~Llfnents to per.for-m the work, alld pr-ovide the Sf2r-vi ce to
which the contracts relate. "
It is appalr'ent .fr-om the above e\.:cer"pts that the Ontar- i 0 Labour
F\elat.ions Boar"d was fully cognizant of the scop'e of direction and contl~ol
r-eti:.'1i ned by the Mi ni stl~y in its dealings with the suhcontr- c.-\ctor-s. Ttle
Boar-d spec:ificall,/ stated in pal'''agr-aph 59 of its decision tl'U1at such
control was not the type of "direct control" typically associated with the
status Ot~ employer- It obser-ved that thel~e was no evidence that the
Ministry eVel'" hir-ed~ f i l~ed, pr-omoted or dir-E.'cted the employees of the
subcontr- i::l.ctOl"'. The Board noted f ur-thel~ that t.he Ministr-y did not dir-ectly
pay' their wagE~s 01'" deal v-J i t h matter-s~ such a~:; VJbr'~: er-s Compensation, on
t.hei. I'" bel'Ulal f 11-'1E? commE'nts of Al t.elr'nate Chai.l~ fvlacDowell Cln this point,
f
I.mdoubted 1 y , r-efer-ence the cl,uitel'"ii:\ used by-tile Boar-d i ri cases where it
mus;t (jeter"mi.ne ~\jhi.ch of t\l'JO C2) or mor'e entities is the r'ee.l emp 1 oyel'"
His ob Sf?I'-Vc:lt i c)ns mi::\~:e it clear- tl,ulat he ccmsi der-ed tl'''le employee:;; to be
I
employees o.f the subc::ontr-i::lctol~ and not t.he Cr-Qwn Indeed, it is e tremely
unIikf?ly that th\? BoaJ'-d ""oul d have or-den;~d a~:; it ch d if it b!:-?L i eVf.?d the~sf.~
i ndi. vi dual s were, in fact and law, employees of the Ministr-y In the case 1
now bf.~fore me, counsel for the Unioll as~ s, in substance~ ttlat I Lise the
I ..
.. i
.
- 25 -
!:'~ame Clr'i t.el'" i a to Y" f?c:\C h cl di'ff€.~I'''E:nt:., i~nd i ncclnsi stent, conclusion \l'Ji.th
I'" ~;\:;p ec: t to the gl''':i. E:;VOI~ C:' t?mp 1 oymPIl t st:.at:us I i:~m hesi. tant to c.\C:Ct~pt this
-~
i.llvitation as, in my :iudgment, the OVf?r' cd 1 i. sSLle of ernp 1. Q /mer',t st.:-\tus WclS
pY"evi ousl y detenTli ned by the (Jnt"H"io Labour Eel at :i. OilS; DOE\I'-d in it3
deci si. on o.f December "7 1992 If t.he Union wished to Clss;er.t t'hat
, ,
l:~mp 10 yees, such i.-":\E5 the gl~i ev'olr', wel'''e in n7!t:l1 i ty 11i ni st:I~Y efllp]. 0 ye(;?s, such
C:~I~ g LImen t should have been advanced befol~e that Boar-d r" cl t h EI'" than hen~'?
Simply put, I thin~ it 0:\ bit late :i n the d Cil '( to put the gr'i ev Olr' S
employment status in issue and to, ther-eby, challenge a major- premi. se
undel'''lying the Boar"d s decision
Notwithstanding the hesitancy e pr-essed above, I have I~evi ewed the
evidence per-taining to the gl~ i evor- s employment and have asse:::sed it
against the cl~iteria Lltilized by the Ontario Lc:-\bour Relations Board
Having done so, I find that the gr i. evol~ at all mater-ial times was an
employee of the subcontractors In this r-egard, I have attached
significance to the following facts ( i ) the gr-ievm- Wi::\S hired and
tet-mi nated by the subcontr-actor-s;; (i i) the gr i evor- was paid by cheques
i. ssuecl by the subcontr-actol~s; c\nd (iii.> the gl~ i ev or- , i:':\t least pY" or' to
the commencemeit o.f 'thi 5 case, consi de,,"ed himsel+ to h,,~\, e bef.'~n an employee
fir-s~t of F al~nell ard then, latel~, of NLltl~itionctl I have' ;,,11 so CClrisi der-ed
!
the type o.f di r-E!ction and cOlltr-ol which the gl~i eVOl~ spo~ e c.f in his
evi dencE! T have been pel~suaded thclt it fails to establish the l'1i n i. stry
...
was the Emp 1 oyel~ F.clthel~ , the Evidence is ::;imply consi.stent with HI e
l"Ii ni str-y having conceY"nS as to both food qLlal i ty ancl i nsti tuti or,,:tl
seCUl~ i t Y I l~€;)i'ilch .the same CDncl us:i. ons c:\~'; did the \Jnti:.~r i D Labour
ReI aU. ons Board with respect to the oper-ation and effect of the
I ..
"'. ~
.
- 26 -
c:ontr" act.ual I'''equi r"€?mE-nts pI "Ked on the s\..lb r.: on t I'" ac: t 01" S
In sumlTlc.u'y, I am s,:\tisfied th<.'1.t the gl''' i f.~VOJ'.. was 11 i 1'''ed initi,,::\lly as an
E'mpJ OYE'e 0+ F alr'Ii(?l 1 C:~lid then, subsequently, as an emp 1. C'Jyee 0+ Nutl'.:i. t i onc(l
I am unable to accept that, ei their' factually Ol~ legc:~ll'y':1 tOOl c'? was an
l";)mp 1. oyee of the \'1ini!:,try as o.f May 1990 It follows tha.t he was captur'ed
by the dec :i. !:;l on of the Ontar-lo Lc;\boLl/~ F\f::~J. ati OriS Boar"d and f 'f t j' b thE?
a . 'f?C E?,' ." Y
P I~ oh i bit i. em cont,3,i. ned in the P L.\.!2.1J....<;.__.Q.fU.' v l..f..!L. ~3 t C':l t l! t ~ Law _"B..Q}@. d 1D~1J.i...... PI c t ,
129.,].
I accept the Employer s submission that the grievor was not an
emp 1 OYE-e fol'" purpc1ses of the collective C':'lgr-eement The t-ecognition
cli:3.use, as .f ound in ar-ticle L 1, I~efel~ences "public ser"vants" Section 1
0) of the. (:r.:g,,~rL_EfllQ..l ov ees Collective B a I" 9 i:\ i. n i...!:l9:...-."t4 c. t a cI 0 p t 5 the E.!::!.Q1J...~_
25:*Tv i.~_.1ict. de+inition 0+ public servant: It is clear- +I~om a rec:.~ding of
such definition that it cont.emplates an e: press appointment to the ser-'v'ic:e
of the C,~own by the Lieutenant Governor- in Council, the Commission, Dr a
r1i ni stel~ Thel~e hi:\S never been i:\n appointment on the facts in this case
Additionally', I am sat i s-f: i ecl ttiat tr'le Public Servi.ce Statute Law Amendm~nt
Ac:~, 1...993 pr ec 1 udes me fl~om infer-r-ing the gr-ievor was appointed a.s a pLlblic
!sel'" vant:1 c'i.vil Si;?r vc:~nt 'OI~ Cr- i:)Wn (~mp 1 oYc~e fr-om the c i r-cumstanc:f.?s of hi
of 1
employment By 'y i rtue section 8 1(11) tJ-ds prohi bi ti,on was deemed to
have come into force on December- 18, 1991 That date is well in advance
of the cil~c:umstances whic:h led directly to tJ-ds gri eVi:\Ilce As stated
i:.1bove!1 .l have also J~e'j ected the Ullion S5 ar-gLlment that the gl~ i eVDr heJ. (j
employee status cl.S of l"lay 1991)
Finally~ I fur-ther- ac::c:c~pt that: t:he Union c '.\nnot i nvC)~: e al'''ticle 13'::',
of the (:r o!:1!l....._..s.!.DQ 1 0 y e ~_".!;o]. 1 es t i ve Bi"r'qai ni.ll9_Act as a SOLlr-ce of
--
..
" .
... l'
.
0
- 27 -
j ur i <5d i <:: t ion ~3t~:r.: t ion 1 (1 ) 0+ the Bs;j;.. pr-ovi dE?~:> that "employee means ,::\
CI~ Dwn emp 1 oyef.? i:\S de+ i. ned in the E.l:t b ..L..t.f.._...l.<;3_g,'.J::!j.,,~;,.~.___..B.~.~1. " The latt.er
~~tat:.ute def i r"le~:> Cr' own emp 1 oy€~e i::\E5 'a pt:?I'''son emp"l. oYf.?d in the ser" vi c:(~ of the
Cr' own " On the facts hel~e , the glr'i evor was nev'E'r" so employed F\athel~ ,
iat <::\11 rni::ltc=I'" i al times, he w~~ emp 1 DYNj bv the sub cc\ntr" .:~c::tOI"' ~5 For- the
I~e.;\f.:;ons S{:;:.t out. c:\b ()VE', I am pn:)rd. b j. tee! bv thE' pr'ov i s.i ons o'f the E. u b lJ...b-_
:~r..:..~" i c ~?~...__;;~!::. ~lt.h\.:t ~,,_.J:::.~h'__._ftr.!lfti.:! d IT..@n t.."A!:=..:t;. !I .:l.:.~!..~t-:-::. 'fnJm infer-ring 'I"he gr" i ev Ol~ s
<~~ppoi nt.mE'nt. c:\ s:. a CI'" own employee I r'lote, spf~cifiC:c:\l i y', ::;Ii=~C t ion 8 1. ( )
ther-' eC:lf l^Jh i ch pn:.wi des that "an individual Io'Jho is employed in the ser-vice
of thE' el'" o~"'n is not consi dey"ed to be a Crowll employee unless the
individual has beE'~n e pl'''essl y appointed as sLlch by the Lieutenant Governor-
in C(;)un c: i 1 , the Commission, or a minister-" Clear-ly, ther'e Io'J a s no such
appointment in this instance Ultimately, I conclude that the grievor is
not entitled to e el~c: i se the I'" i. ght s accolr-ded to emplovees by section 18<-:2>
of the ~rown Emp 1 f~?eS Collecti.ve B ~"" r q a i n i n 9-B.s.:!;"
In summi::\I~ y, and .for- all of the reasons e pressed above, I find thi::\t
the GI'''it~vance S<-:!ttl ement. Boar-d lacks jUl~i sdi cti on to ellter-tain the
gr-i evol~ s complaint Put another- way, the gi~i evol~ is nG/t ~ntitled to
pur-'sue his 91'- i t?'v anCl,? tD the Boar d as he l"'ctS not an emp 1 i::l lee, public:
5121"" ant or CrolfJn emp]. 0 y"E,e .t-or pur'poses of the col i. ectj. ve ~lgl~eement a.nd tr'le
!
l~eJ. evant statutes Gi vel, the 1 ac~ of e iclence with I~espect to statL\S and
to ent i. t]. ement to a I~emed'r' , T would e\l so have Qr'anted the motion far nan-
...
suit In ei thel~ f:.~''vent :' the gr- i f:?vanc::e is di smi !5sed
Dat.ed ,;:\t Wi. ndsol~, Ontar-io t.hi.s 9th dc:\)/ of J~ihlf8ry , 1996.
trf) V lAJ.i:t::fus
_._.__._._,---~_..._-.._._._._...,--_.---_.~_......_-
Ivl V Wat.ters, Vice-Chair