HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 05-06-06
. 06/08/05 WED 10:40 FAX 613+548+7624
ELIOT SMITH LAW OFFICE
141002
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
And
OPSEU
(Multiple Grievances regarding Layoffs)
Before:
William Kaplan
Sole Arbitrator
Appearances
For the Employer:
Daniel Fogel
Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie
Barristers & Solicitors
For the Union:
Kristin Eliot
Eliot, Smith
Barristers & Solicitors
These grievances proceeded to a hearing in Toronto on May 30,2005.
. 06/08/05 WED 10:40 FAX 613+548+7624
ELIOT SMITH LAW OFFICE
141 003
Introduction
In May 2001, l\.1PAC announced a major reorganization. As part of this
reorganization, a number of employees received layoff notices (although
very few employees involuntarily had their employtnent severed). In the
aftermath of that reorganization, and issue of those layoff notices, a large.
number of grievances were filed. By the decision of the parties, an expedited
mediation-arbitration system was put into place to fairly and quickly resolve
the numerous outstanding grievances in dispute. Accordingly, the parties
submitted detailed written briefs setting out the facts in issue and their
respective positions and arguments as to the appropriate disposition of the
various layoff cases. The first round of those layoff cases proceeded to a
hearing on May 30, 2005.
While various arguments were advanced and, in all cases, were tailored to
individual grievors, the union's main position, briefly put, is that the
grievors were all qualified to move directly to certain identified positions,
had the skill and ability to perform those positions with minimal orientation
and should have been allowed, given their seniority, t6 move directly into
these specific targeted positions. In response, the employer submits that the
grievors, by and large, did not possess the qualifications to assume those
2
. 06/08/05 WED 10:40 FAX 613+548+7624
ELIOT SMITH LAW OFFICE
141 004
positions "without training" as required by the collective agreement and that
seniority did not, therefore, come into play.
Not surprisingly, given the extent ofMPAC operations, and the scope of the
reorganization;the union was able to point to a few examples of employees
in comparable positions who received what appears to be more than simple
orientation facilitating their movement to desired positions. To the extent
this took place, which the employer rejects as having happened, the
employer argues that. it was anomalous and, in any event, not what was
required by the collective agreement.
Having carefully considered the evidence and arguments of the parties, I am
of the view, subject to particular awards below, that the employer was in
compliance with the collective agreement and with the Futures Protocol
negotiated betw~en the parties. Moreover, while the submission was made in
every case that the employer failed to properly assess the grievors, in my
view, on the evidence presented, this submission cannot be maintained.
Certainly, whatever flaws were identified, they were not fatal. Several
grievors, it must be pointed out, voluntarily resigned after filing their
grievances. It should also be noted that with one exception, for which the
3
. 06/08/05 WED 10:40 FAX 613+548+7624
ELIOT SMITH LAW OFFICE
141 005
parties worked out a consensual post-hearing mechanism designed to ensure
due process, all incumbents were notified of their right to attend and
participate.
Decision
1. Grievance of Jean-Paul Maurice
Submissions completed. Decision deferred on agreement of the parties
pending resolution of a related grievance involving a more senior grievor.
2. Grievance of Everett Kelly
Submissions completed. Decision deferred on agreement of the parties
pending resolution of a related grievance involving a more senior grievor.
3. Grievance of Jacques D'Aoust
Dismissed.
4, Grievance of Michel Lacelle
Dismissed.
5. Grievance of Annette Kimelman
Grievor to be paid $2000 less deductions required by law. Payment to be
made within thirty days.
4
,06/08/05 WED 10:41 FAX 613+548+7624
ELIOT SMITH LAW OFFICE
141 006
:
6. Grievance of Joanne Mercier
While the grievance is dismissed, it should be noted that this finding is made
without regard to the employer's performance based allegations.
7. Grievance of Martin Vink
Grievor to be paid the sum of $900 less deductions required by law.
Payment to be made within thirty days of to day's date.
8. Grievance of Roxanne Levy
With the agreement of the parties, this grievance is disposed of based on the
comprehensive and detailed written submissions. Grievance dismissed.
9. Grievance of James Simon
Pursuant to Minutes of Settlement between the parties dated September-4,
2003, and the agreement of the parties at the hearing, it is clear that both of
Mr. Simon's grievances have been consolidated and will proceed before
Arbitrator Charney if otherwise unresolved.
10. Grievance of Maureen Hacking
Grievance dismissed.
5
o 06/08/05 WED 10:41 FAX 613+548+7624
ELIOT SMITH LAW OFFICE
141 007
Conclusion
I remain seized with respect to the implementation of my award.
DATED at Toronto this 6th day of June 2005.
(I. , _..~--.~-
,~ I j "'"....
:.~ I ;----
..v "I
~ ;
William Kaplan, Sole Arbitrator
6