Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThorpe 16-10-24 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK (“the Employer”) - and - ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE UNION, LOCAL 571 (“the Union”) Concerning the individual grievance of Lisa Thorpe (“the Grievor”) Sole Arbitrator Kelly Waddingham APPEARANCES For the Employer: Sandi Tanner – Director, Labour Relations Sophie Kakouris – Manager, Human Resources Maria Amenta – Manager Tom Clancy – Director Laboratory Operations For the Union: Archana Mathew – Grievance Officer Lisa Thorpe – Grievor A hearing held in Toronto, Ontario on October 19, 2016. Award issued on October 24, 2016 AWARD 1. This award deals with an alleged failure to abide with Minutes of Settlement (“MOS”). 2. The MOS were concluded between the parties on November 17, 2014 and resolved a grievance alleging that the Employer had failed to provide a “safe work environment” for the Grievor, a Technician III in the Specimen Management Core Lab at the Toronto General Hospital site. The MOS are comprehensive and were agreed upon in order to accommodate the Grievor. The MOS include an agreement to transfer the Grievor to the laboratory at the Toronto Western site, room 466. The Employer agreed to equip the room with a thermostat to control “both the air flow and temperature in the room”. 3. In early 2016, the Union alleged that there had been a breach of the settlement. The parties met on May 27, 2016 in an attempt to resolve the matter. Their discussions were intense, but fruitful, and resulted in the parties entering into a written agreement regarding the implementation of the MOS. It was agreed that a third party representative from Honeywell would attend the workplace and provide me and the parties with information so that I may determine the following: 1. a. Whether or not the thermostat is operation (sic) within the limits set out in the Ontario Building Code. For the purposes of clarity, operational is defined as having the ability to control desired temperature between 68 and 74 degrees Fahrenheit; b. Whether or not the Grievor has exclusive manual control of the thermostat in Room 466 The parties further agreed that: 2. The Honeywell representative will also provide a verbal explanation of the HVAC system in room 466 and the difference and air flow. 3. For the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2 above, each party may bring up to 4 representatives including legal counsel. Arbitrator Waddingham shall preside. 4. The Honeywell representative’s demonstration shall constitute the only evidence before Arbitrator Waddingham and neither party shall have the right to examine/cross examine him/cross examine him/her. The Union and the Employer may each ask up to a further three questions each, for the sole purpose of clarifying, if necessary paragraph 1(a) and (b) above. 5. Arbitrator Waddingham shall then determine, in writing, whether or not the employer has breached the settlement. 4. At the invitation of the parties on October 19, 2016 I attended at the Toronto Western site, where I met Mr. Banaisk, the third party representative from Honeywell. The parties and I took a view of room 466 and the Employer’s mechanical room in which a computerized system reads and records the temperature of room 466. Mr. Banaisk provided a basic explanation of the heating ventilation and air conditioning (“HVAC”) system in room 466. As per the agreement each party was afforded the opportunity to ask Mr. Banaisk three questions. The Grievor was provided with an opportunity to ask Mr. Banaisk a limited number of questions. 5. Room 466 is equipped with an articulated diffuser placed over a variable air volume box (“VAV”), which has two modes; heating and cooling. The fins on the articulated diffuser are set in one direction, pointed away from the Grievor’s work station. The temperature setting for room 466 is operated by a manual thermostat on the wall in room 466. The VAV uses a proportional integral derivative controller (“PID”) to open and close the reheat valve based on feedback from the manual thermostat in room 466. The set point refers to the temperature which can be set on the manual thermostat in room 466. Although the set point on the manual thermostat in room 466 may be set between 50 to 80 degrees Fahrenheit, the parameters of the actual temperature are as per regulation between 68-74 degrees (within 1 degree fluctuation). Unlike constant air volume (“CAV”) systems, which supply a constant airflow at a variable temperature, VAV systems vary the airflow at a constant temperature. The VAV system provides a more precise temperature control. 6. Mr. Banaisk stated that the CFM (cubic feet per minute), which is the measurement of the velocity at which air flows into or out of a space should not be significantly affected by air bouncing off the walls in room 466. According to Mr. Banaisk the placement of the thermostat in relation to the articulated diffuser would affect the accuracy of the temperature reading on the manual thermostat in room 466. Mr. Banaisk stated that a hand held device would not provide an accurate reading of the airflow or the temperature in room 466. 7. Mr. Banaisk adjusted the set point on the thermostat in room 466. The increase in air volume was easily seen on the paper indicator (which began to move with the flow of air) attached to the diffuser. We proceeded to the mechanical room where we saw a computer screen, which had a graph providing a reading of the set point (blue line) and actual temperature (red line) for room 466 between approximately 7:30am and 11:30am on October 19, 2016. The graph indicated that the actual temperature of room 466 met and followed the set point, albeit at a slow, but according to Mr. Banaisk acceptable rate. 8. In summary, after carefully listening to Mr. Banaisk’s explanation and answers to the parties’ questions I am satisfied that the Grievor has manual control (within set parameters) of the thermostat in room 466; and that the thermostat is operational within the limits set out in the Ontario Building Code. 9. I find that the Employer has complied with its obligation under the MOS. 10. This concludes the matter. Dated at Toronto on October 24, 2016.