HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-0787.Neniska.20-02-06 Decision
Crown Employees Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2017-0787
UNION# 2017-0719-0008
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Neniska) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of the Solicitor General) Employer
BEFORE Ken Petryshen Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION Ed Holmes
Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP
Counsel
FOR THE EMPLOYER Paul Meier
Treasury Board Secretariat
Legal Services Branch
Counsel
TELECONFERENCE January 27, 2020
- 2 -
Decision
[1] In a decision dated November 8, 2019, I directed the Employer to pay Mr.
Neniska the sum of $500.00 as damages for its breach of a Memorandum of Settlement
dated September 8, 2017. I also directed that the $500.00 was to be paid within sixty
days from the date of the decision. The Employer did not make the payment by the
deadline of January 7, 2020. On January 10, 2020, Union counsel raised the issue of
the late payment with Employer counsel. The Employer sent the payment to Mr.
Neniska on January 16, 2020, and he received it on January 24, 2020. This decision
addresses the Union’s request for a remedy for the Employer’s breach of the direction
contained in the decision dated November 8, 2019.
[2] Immediately after receiving the decision awarding the payment of damages to
Mr. Neniska, the ERA sent the decision to the Regional Office and to the
Superintendent and the Deputy Superintendent at the relevant institution, instructing
them to ensure payment was made to Mr. Neniska. It appears that the changing of the
Superintendent and the extended absence of the Deputy Superintendent due to illness
was in large part responsible for the Employer not making the payment in a timely
manner.
[3] To remedy the breach of the direction to pay damages within sixty days of the
November 8, 2019 decision, the Union seeks a declaration, interest on the late payment
and a further award of $500.00 in damages. Although conceding a breach of the
direction, the Employer took the position that an award of damages was not appropriate
in the circumstances. During their submissions on the teleconference, Union counsel
relied on OPSEU (Bateman et al.) and Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional
Services (2016), GSB Nos. 2014-3683 et al. (Johnston) and Employer counsel relied on
OPSEU (Salmon) and Liquor Control Board of Ontario (2019), GSB Nos. 2010-0054 et
al. (Johnston).
[4] The issue in OPSEU (Bateman et al.) was whether the failure of the Ministry
of Community Safety and Correctional Services (now called the Ministry of the Solicitor
General) to pay damages to a grievor within sixty days as provided for in Minutes of
Settlement (“MOS”) warranted a remedy that included an order directing the Employer
- 3 -
to pay damages for the breach of the MOS. In declining to make such an order in the
circumstances, the Arbitrator made the following comments at page 5:
…In my view, if you agree to a time frame for certain actions, you are bound by that
time frame. Neither counsel was aware of a case in which the union had taken the
position it was now taking before me. Although union counsel asserted that the
employer has missed the deadline for payment in the past, the union has not ever
sought damages or compensation for breach of contract. Therefore as this appears to
be the first time that a remedy has been sought, it seems appropriate to me to put the
employer on notice that the next time it fails to pay in accordance with the agreed MOS
there could be consequences. Obviously, the consequences will be dependent on the
facts.
[5] It is trite to say that parties are obliged to comply with the terms of a
settlement and with the terms of an order from the Board. In this instance, the breach of
the Board’s order was not due to bad faith or willful misconduct. Once the breach was
brought to its attention, the Employer quickly arranged for payment to be made to Mr.
Neniska. I was advised that the interest owing as a result of the late payment amounts
to less than one dollar. However, this is not the first time that the Ministry has breached
a payment deadline, as evidenced by OPSEU (Bateman et al.) And the damages
award in the November 8, 2019 decision was a result of the Employer’s breach of an
earlier Memorandum of Settlement. In my view, the frustration and additional time Mr.
Neniska has had to devote to receiving his damages award warrants a remedy that
includes a payment for damages. However, in light of all of the circumstances, the
request for $500.00 in damages for breach of the Board’s direction is excessive.
[6] The breach of the Board’s order shall be addressed as follows:
1. I find and declare that the Employer has breached the Board’s direction set
out in the decision dated November 8, 2019, by failing to pay $500.00 to Mr.
Neniska within sixty days from the date of the decision.
2. I direct the Employer to pay to Mr. Neniska the sum of $100.00 by no later
than 40 days from the date of this decision. This amount includes any interest
owing.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 6th day of February, 2020.
“Ken Petryshen”
Ken Petryshen, Arbitrator