HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiller 10-02-25
At14>
01
<'c?~
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
Bruce County EMS
and
OPSEU
(Grievance of Miller, Re: Bereavement Leave)
Before:
William Kaplan
Sole Arbitrator
Appearances
For the Board:
Douglas 1. Harris
Director, Human Resources
Corporation of the County of Bruce
For the Union:
Mitch Bevan
Grievance Officer
OPSEU
This matter proceeded to a hearing in Kincardine on February 22, 2010.
Introduction
Tbis case involves the interpretation of Article 15.02 (a) of the Collective Agreement. It
provides:
Bereavement Leave
In the event of a death in an employee's immediate family, a permanent full-time or permanent
part-time employee, provided he has completed his probationary period, shall be granted a leave
of absence with pay of up to a maximum of three (3) consecutive scheduled calendar days upon
proper notification to his immediate supervisor. Such leave shall consist of the day of the funeral
plus two (2) other days immediately before or immediately after the funeral day. Leave shall be
granted for the purpose of making arrangements for and attending the funeral.
The Facts
N one of the background facts are in dispute. The grievor is a paramedic. Her
grandmother passed away on Saturday, December 15,2007. The grievor had been
scheduled to work that day, but had booked off sick. The grievor was scheduled to work
on Sunday, December 16, 2007. Monday, December 17, 2007 and Tuesday, December
18,2007, were scheduled days off for the grievor.
The grievor was also scheduled to work on Wednesday, December 19,2007. That day
was the day of the funeral. The grievor received that day offwith.pay. She also received
Thursday, December 20,2007 off with pay (another day she had been previously
scheduled to work). The grievor was already scheduled off of work on December 21, 22
& 23. Her first day back at work was December 24th.
2
The Dispute
In the union's submission, the grievor should have been allowed to take Sunday,
December 16, 2007 as one of her three bereavement days. The employer disagreed, and
willie it allowed the grievor to take the day off, it required her to use a vacation day. The
grievance seeks payment for December 16, 2007.
Argument
In the union's submission, the language at issue in tbis case was both unique and
straightforward. It referred to "consecutive scheduled calendar days...." What that meant,
in the union's submission, was scheduled work days. The parties, obviously, used the
word "scheduled" for a reason, and that reason was to make clear that the days being
referred to were work days. The three continuous scheduled work days were December
16, 19 & 20. Accordingly, the grievor should have been entitled to take the last scheduled
work day off prior to the funeral as one of her bereavement days; namely, Sunday,
December 16,2007, and then December 19 & 20, 2007. As she was forced to take the
Sunday off as a vacation day, she was deprived of her entitlement under the collective
agreement and was, accordingly, owed a day's pay.
For its part, the employer argued that the provision had to be read as a whole. It required
that the days off be "consecutive." "Consecutive," in management's submission, did not
mean interrupted. It meant the exact opposite: uninterrupted. The union's interpretation
of the provision required an interruption and was, therefore, contrary to the bargain that
had been reached. Any doubt about the correctness of tills interpretation, the employer
3
argued, was made clear by.the use of the word "immediately." The days in question had
to be "immediately before or immediately after the funeral day." "Immediately" did not
mean, management suggested, after a break of several days. December 16th, was not
"immediately" before the funeral. For all of these reasons and others, the employer asked
that the grievance be dismissed.
Decision
Having carefully considered the evidence and arguments of the parties, I am of the view
that the grievance must be dismissed.
In my view, the collective agreement provision must be read as a whole and all of its
words must be given meaning. First, it does not guarantee three days. It provides for a
maximum of three days. Wbile the words "consecutive scheduled calendar days,"
arguably, might be ambiguous, any doubt about the correct interpretation of the provision
is resolved by the requirement that the days be immediately before or immediately after
the funeral. In tbis case, Sunday, December 16, 2007 was not immediately before the
funeral. The word "consecutive" means one after the other. The conclusion is inescapable
that the parties intended for an employee to receive up to three days off of work, that
those days be in a row, that two of the days be either immediately before or after the
funeral, and that one of the days be for attendance at the funeral.
If the parties wish to provide an absolute entitlement for three days of bereavement leave,
they can negotiate a provision to that effect. Likewise, if the parties wish to entitle an
4
employee to take off three work days around the date of the funeral, as opposed to up to
three days in a row including the day of the funeral and two other days either
immediately before or immediately after the funeral, they would need to negotiate
language to that effect.
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, the grievance is dismissed.
DATED at Toronto this 25th day of February 2010.
"William Kaplan"
William Kaplan, Sole Arbitrator
5