HomeMy WebLinkAboutShannon 19-08-02IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN
London Health Sciences Centre
(“Hospital”)
and
Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 106
(“Union”)
Grievance of Shannon Henry
SOLE ARBITRATOR: James Hayes
APPEARANCES
For the Union
Mihad Fahmy, Counsel
Steve McCann, Local President
Lynne Easter, Staff Representative
Shannon Henry, Grievor
For the Hospital
Brian O’Byrne, Counsel
Angela Hodgson, Director
A hearing was held in London, Ontario on January 29, 2019.
2
AWARD
1. The parties agreed that this matter should be resolved in what has become
known as a ‘Section 50’ type format. The parties met separately with the Arbitrator
and their competing positions were communicated to each other informally.
2. The dispute arises from a notice of layoff that had been given to the Grievor.
That issue was resolved in a detailed, without prejudice and precedent, Letter of
Understanding dated July 16, 2015 (“LOU”).
3. As required by the LOU, the Grievor was transferred into a vacancy for Lab
Assistant III in Specimen Receiving. However, the LOU provided for her
classification as Lab Assistant II and payment at that rate.
4. The LOU at paragraph 3 stated that:
Shannon Henry will be classified as a Lab Assistant II and will be paid at the Lab
Assistant II rate of pay effective her transfer to Specimen Receiving on September
4, 2015. NOTE: This classification and rate of pay is in accordance with the terms
of the Arbitration Award related to Laboratory Assistant Wage Rates signed on
April 1, 2008 (Kevin Burkett, Arbitrator). The Award incorporated a
Memorandum of Agreement reached by the parties. (“MOA”)
5. The LOU also stated that: “Shannon Henry will be reclassified to the Lab
Assistant III classification and wage grid when she presents proof, satisfactory to the
hospital, of certification with either CSMLS or OSMT as a Medical Laboratory
Assistant.
6. The parties and the Grievor complied fully with the LOU. Accordingly, Ms.
Henry is now classified as a “Tech 3”.
7. The grievance alleges that Ms. Henry should have been placed at the top level
of the Tech 3 grid effective February 23, 2017.
3
8. The Union argues that the following paragraph in the MOA – not the LOU -
governs this dispute:
In the event an employee currently classified as a Laboratory Assistant ii obtains
her or his CSMLS or OSMT certification on or before March 31, 2009, that
employee will then be reclassified as a Laboratory Assistant III under the
Technician III category and will be paid the Technician III rate of pay effective the
date she/he obtains her/his CSMLS or OSMT certification provided that this
occurs on or before March 31, 2009.
9. The Hospital relies upon Article 13.08 of the Collective Agreement that
includes the following:
An employee who is promoted to a higher rated classification within the
bargaining unit will be placed in the range of the higher rated classification so
that he shall receive no less an increase in wage rate than the equivalent of one
step in the wage rate of his previous classification (provided that he does not
exceed the wage rate of the classification to which he has been promoted).
10. Notwithstanding Union counsel’s careful explication of the Grievor’s position,
because it occurred years later, the settlement of the Grievor’s earlier layoff dispute
obviously had nothing to do with the specific facts that led to that MOA. Paragraph 5
of the MOA is time limited. The Grievor is not identified in either Schedule of names
appended to the MOA.
11. Insofar as the LOU is concerned, it is noteworthy that paragraph 3 - that does
include a reference to the MOA - speaks only to the rate of pay that the Grievor was
to receive in the Lab Assistant II classification. It says nothing about what her
subsequent rate of pay should be.
12. In these circumstances, I conclude that Article 13.08 of the Collective
Agreement directs what Ms. Henry should have properly received when she moved
up to the Lab Assistant III classification.
4
13. I understand that there is no dispute that the Grievor was properly
compensated having regard to the requirements of Article 13.08 and, therefore, the
grievance must be dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 8th day of February, 2019.
James Hayes