HomeMy WebLinkAboutMartin et al 22-02-081
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
THE COUNTY OF LENNOX AND ADDINGTON
(the “Employer”)
-and-
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES’ UNION AND ITS
LOCAL 457
(the “Union”)
AND IN THE MATTER OF SEVERAL GRIEVANCES REGARDING VACATION
SCHEDUL ING – #’s 2020-0457-0002 (MARTIN), 2020-0457-000 3 (UNION), 2020-
0457-0004, (CAREFOOT), 2021-0457-0001 (KUIPERS GROUP), 2021-0457-0002
(MARTIN), 2021-0457-0003, (UNION), 2021-0457-0004 (STRASSBURGER), 2021-
0457-0005 (LAW) 2021-0457-0006 (LAW) AND 2021-0457-0010 (MARTIN)
Louisa M. Davie - Sole Arbitrator
For the Union: Mae Jane Nam
Farnaz Talebpour
For the Employer: Steve Menard
2
Award
There are before me several individual , group and union policy grievances. The issue
raised in each of the grievances is that the Employer's May 2020 vacation policy, and
the quotas established in that policy, violate the collective agreement between the
County of Lennox and Addington (“the Employer”) and the Ontario Public Service
Employees’ Union, Local 457 (“the Union”).
This matter was heard via videoconference on September 22, 2021 and February 1,
2022. In addition, a teleconference hearing was conducted on November 30, 2021 to
address requests for the production of documents and the provision of particulars. An
interim award dated December 8, 2021 with respect to those matters was issued. That
award assisted the parties in the presentation of the facts and in focusing on the areas
of dispute. At the hearing on February 1, 2022 each side was therefore able to
succinctly summarize their position and argue their case. In so doing each relied
primarily on the following provisions of the collective agreement.
ARTICLE 23 - VACATIONS
23.01 Where possible and subject to operational requirements, vacations shall
be arranged according to the requests submitted by individual staff
members. Where a conflict exists in vacation scheduling, seniority shall be
the governing factor.
23.10 Vacation Scheduling
a) Employees shall submit their requests for vacation from June 1 to May 31
of the following year on or before May 1st of each year, employees must
indicate first, second and third choice of vacation periods for each week or
period of vacation.
b) An employee shall be entitled to receive up to three (3) weeks of her/his
vacation in an unbroken period unless otherwise mutually agreed upon
between the employee concerned and the Employer, except during July
and August when only two (2) weeks may be taken. However, after all full
time and part time employees have been accommodated, additional
vacation time off may be approved on the basis of seniority during July
3
and August if the Employer determines that additional vacation time of f is
available.
…
e) Vacation quotas shall not be unduly restrictive and shall only include
members of the bargaining unit.
f) In the event of conflict of requests submitted by May 1st of each year,
seniority shall govern with respect of scheduling o f vacations. The
Employer may authorize other arrangements to provide coverage from
other units for vacation relief, subject to operational requirements. Should
an employee(s) be temporarily assigned to another unit for vacation relief,
the employee(s) will not be entitled to travel time or overtime associated
with travel time. Employees will report to work at the regular shift start time
and conclude work at the regular shift end time.
The Employer shall finalize the vacation schedule and confirm each
employee’s vacation dates by June 1st of each year.
Requests submitted after May 1st of each year shall be granted on a first
come first served basis. Authorization of requests submitted after May 1st
that are for a period after June 1st will be confirmed as soon as possible
following June 1st.
Having regard to the submissions of the parties, in the circumstances of this case, I find
that the Employer's vacation quotas as established in the May 2020 vacation policy are
reasonable and not unduly restrictive. In applying that policy to the facts of the
grievances the Employer did not violate the collective agreement.
It is evident however that the vacation policy is an ongoing source of concern between
the parties. In my view those concerns are best addressed by the Employer and the
Union representatives at the Employer/Employee Relations Committee established in
the collective agreement. I direct the parties to bring forth issues that either party may
have with respect to the vacation policy to that Committee for meaningful discussion
and consultation with each other. It is in the interest of harmonious labo ur relations that
each party can use this valuable collective agreement tool to further their mutual
4
interests and avoid unnecessary friction in the workplace arising from the vacation
policy.
Moreover, it is also evident that some of the grievances before me arise because of
requests for single days of vacation, and the lack of communication or understanding
about days which may be available fo r vacation following the May 1st date by which
employees must indicate their first, second or third choice, and the June 1st date by
which the Employer must finalize and confirm vacation dates. I therefore direct the
Employer to make available to bargaini ng unit members as soon as possible following
the June 1st annual vacation schedule finalization date, and in any event on or before
June 7th each calendar year, all days which on June 1st have not reached the quota
and therefore remain available for vaca tion. That information should assist those
employees wh ose vacation requests have been denied in making their vacation
requests. Such subsequent requests for vacation are subject to the collective
agreement provisions including that vacation requests submitted after May 1st will be
granted on a first come first served basis.
In the result, and subject to my directions herein, the grievances are dismissed.
Dated this 8th day of February 2022
Louisa Davie