HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 10-11-01
1
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
COMPLEX SERVICES INC. C.O.B. AS CASINO NIAGARA AND NIAGARA
FALLSVIEW CASINO RESORT
(the "Employer")
-and-
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION ON BEHALF OF ITS
LOCAL 278
(the "Union")
AND IN THE MATTER OF TWO GRIEVANCES FILED BY THE UNION ON
JANUARY 8,2009 REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF WAGES
AND IN THE MATTER OF AN EMPLOYER GRIEVANCE FILED JANAURY 15,
2009 REGARDING THE RECOVERY OF AN OVERPAYMENT OF WAGES
Board of Arbitration
Louisa M. Davie
Pamela Munt-Madill
Judith Rundle
Chair
Union Nominee
Employer Nominee
Appearances
For the Union:
Richard Blair, Counsel
Robert Gale
For the Employer:
Simon Mortimer, Counsel
Paul Pingue
Richard Paris
Debbie DiLorenzo
Gemma Copland
2
Award
These grievances came before this Board of Arbitration on November 1, 2010, and were
heard in the City of Niagara Falls.
At the commencement of the hearing the parties agreed that we were properly seized to
hear and determine the matters in dispute.
There are three grievances before this Board of Arbitration. Two have been filed by the
Union and assert that the Employer has violated the collective agreement in its payment
of wages. It a nutshell, the grievances assert that, effective April 1, 2008, the correct job
rate to be paid to employees was $19.90, and the Employer's failure to pay that rate after
December 21, 2008 violated the collective agreement.
The grievance filed by the Employer asserts that, effective April 1, 2008, the correct job
rate to be paid to employees was $19.85. The Employer's conduct in paying employees
$19.90 for a period of time thereafter was in error. In the grievance filed the Employer
seeks to recover the money it maintains was overpaid to employees in error.
At the commencement of the hearing counsel for the Employer indicated that the
Employer did not seek to pursue its recovery of the overpayment of money to employees.
The Employer therefore withdrew its grievance.
The Board then heard the submissions of counsel with respect to the Union's grievances.
3
There was little dispute between the parties regarding the facts, although there was
significant dispute between them regarding the appropriate characterization of those
facts, and the legal principles that applied to those facts.
Having regard to the submissions of the parties we find that the language of the collective
agreement required that on December 21,2008 the appropriate job rate to be paid to
employees under the collective agreement expiring March 31, 2009 was $19.85. As the
Employer paid that rate there has not been a violation of the collective agreement. The
Union grievances are therefore dismissed.
Dated at Mississauga this 1st day of November, 2011
;V~,
I concur! I aig8ent
I Ct~mc.t.tr -liT (;tel rrh. RuvJ(.e I,
Judith Rundle
I €€lI1€m/ I dissent
Io-l:Ss~&-l+ ,'I ~~l'V\.Ub VMl.tI'J -{filledl'/f "
Pamela Munt-Madill