HomeMy WebLinkAboutFarrow Group 10-11-17
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Bet wee n:
HEADWATERS HEALTH CARE CENTRE
- and -
(the "Hospital")
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 227
and in the matter of grievance no. 2009-0227-0001.
Russell Goodfellow - Sole Arbitrator
APPEARANCES FOR THE HOSPITAL:
Robert Hickman
Demetrios Kalantzis
APPEARANCES FOR THE UNION:
Alick Ryder
Marisa Forsyth
Dale Love
A hearing was held in this matter in Orangeville on November 11,2010.
(the "Union")
AWARD
This award arises out of a group grievance challenging the wages paid to
persons performing respiratory and ultrasound work. The grievance is dated July 9,
2009. A related grievance, dated January 11, 2008, is not before me. The January 11,
2008 grievance concerns persons whose employment began prior to the change made by
the Hospital that gives rise to both grievances. The present grievance concerns persons
whose employment began after the change in question.
Beginning in July 2008 the Hospital decided that it would no longer treat
persons performing ultrasound and respiratory work (other than persons in the Charge
Technologist Classification) as "Senior Technologists" referred to at page 99 of the
collective agreement (and at page 87 as "Ultrasound/ChiropodylRespiratory") but as
"Registered Technologists". In the case of the pre-existing employees (who are the
subject of the grievance that is not before me) this decision would have resulted in an
immediate pay-reduction; however, rather than implement such a reduction immediately,
the Hospital "red-circled" employees at their existing rates of pay. Employees
subsequently hired, however (who are the subject of the present grievance), were placed
on the lower pay grid from the outset.
The Union concedes that the work performed by the employees is that of
the lower-rated, rather than the higher-rated, classification. However, it submits that the
Hospital is estopped from treating employees as members of the Registered Technologist
classification because it had never utilized that classification in the past. The Union relies
on the Hospital's long-standing practice as a representation that the lower-rated
classification would not be applied to the work in question and that all present and future
[
2
employees would be paid at the higher rate. The Union submits that it relied on this
representation to its detriment by having been denied the opportunity to address the
matter at bargaining for the renewal of the collective agreement.
I agree with the Union; in so stating, I reject the Hospital's argument, inter
alia, that the filing of the present grievance in July 2009, almost a year after the Hospital
began to change its practice in respect of the then existing employees, and after the
nominal expiry date of the collective agreement under which the present grievance is
filed, has any remedial effect. The Hospital is estopped, for the period of the actual
operation of the 2006-2009 collective agreement, from treating the employees who are
the subject of the present grievance as members of the lower, rather than higher, rated
classification. And, it is hereby ordered to compensate such employees for any and all
fmanciallosses to date.
I will remain seized in respect of any and all issues arising out of the
implementation of this award.
DATED at Toronto this 17th day of November, 2010.
~
Russell Goodfellow - Sole Arbitrator