HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 01-12-19
~ .~
,
r
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
CANADIAN BLOOD SERVICES
(Hereinafter refened to as the Employer)
AND
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVIC~EMPLOYEES UNION AND ITS LOCAL 106
(Hereinafter refened to as the Union) .
AND IN THE MATTER OF A GRIEVANCE REGARDING SICK LEAVE
(OPSEU FILE NO. 00~206~1.63)
. ARBITRATOR:
Gail Brent
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER:
Frances R. Gallop, COUllsel
Andrew Ashenhmst, Student-at-Law
Rob Bunvash; Manager, Human Resources
FOR THE UNION:
Kelly Waddingham, COlUlsel
Hearing held at Hamilton, Ontario on December 14, 2001.
DECISION
TIlis matter arises out of a grievance (Ex. 2) dated November 8, 2000 alleging that the
Employer "has violated articles 25,04, 15.03 and any other relevant articles" by denying employees,
who had formerly been full-time employees, credit for their prior service in relation to sick leave
accruals whcn they returned to full-time employment 11'om part-time cmploymcnt. There were no
2
preliminary objections raised concerning arbitrability or jurisdiction.
The parties elected not to cal~ viva voce evidence. The facts relied on for the pmpose of this
hearing were set out in an agreed statement of facts, the body of which is reproduced below:
1. In 1995 and early 1996, Canadian Blood Services (then the Canadian Red Cross
Society) was going through restructming and downsizings, and a number of layoffs
o'ccurred.
2. At that time, there was a collective agreement covering palt-time service employees
at the Hamilton Centre, and there was a collective agreement covering full-time
employees at the Hamilton. Centre. These agreements remained in' force until
November 14, 1996 and are attached.
3. In 1995 and early 1996, certain full-time service employees in Hamilton were laid off
in accordance with the full-time agreement. Some of these laid off employees took
part-time positions covered by the" part-time collective agreement. These employees
were not recalled to full-time status and remained in part-time positions until
November 1999, when they were successful in securing full-time positio~s thrOllgh a
job posting process. It is those individuals that the grievance is concerned with.
4.. The grievance together with cOlTespondence between the parties relating to the
grievance is attached. Also attached are the current collective agreement (1998-2001)
and the previous collective agreement (1996-1998).
In addition to those documents referred to in the agreed statement offacts, the parties also filed
the letters (Exs. 8, 9, 10, and 11) written by the Employer to one; of the employees who was affected
by the layoff and whose employment pattem .is as set out in paragraph 3 of the agreed statement of
facts. TIlOse letters indicate the following:
e On January 4, 1996 the employee was given notice oflayoff (Ex. 8) effective February
8, 1996. It infoffiled her, inter alia, of her right to bump and of her right to severance
pay at the expiry of her recall rights in twelve months.
e On January 22, 1996 the employee was offered parHime employment with the
Employer effective February 9, 1996. It infonnedher of her salary and that shc would
3
be receiving a percentage in lieu of benefits and would be covered by the part-time
collective agreement. (See Ex. 11)
· On September 3, 1999 the employee was offered full-time empl~yment with the
Employer and informed of her salary and that she would now be eligible for benefits
as a fulltime-employee. This was effective October 11, 1999. (See Ex. 9)
· On November 11, 1999 the employee was sent a letter (Ex. 10) setting out "the
important changes to your conditions of employment resulting from your hew statusH
as follows:
Seniority Date: You will now appear on the Full Time Seniority list. Your hours
work~d up to the date of your transfer have been converted into days to determine your
seniority date as it will appear on the seniority list. Your Seniority date is 1991~12~17.
Sick Leave: You are now eligible to receive wages during absences due t~ illness. A
schedule of the sick leave plan is attached. Your length of service for the plUposes of
sick leave will commence as of 1999-10-11. Every year on this date you will be
credited with "additional sick leave days according to the schedule.
Paid Vacation: Pay in lieu of vacation will ce~se. Yom length of service will be
carried over for vacation pUlposes. You are eligible for 4 weeks at 1 2/3 days per.
month. Your department can provide you with details on procedures for scheduling
vacation. Your department will also h'ack your ~acation entitlement and days taken.
Your date for determining vacation increment is 1991-12-17.
Benefits: You are now eligible to join the Staff Benefit Plan and Pension Plan in
accordance with the regulations of the plans. . . .
TIle question of how those individuals who had begun as full-time employees and remained
employees of the Employer, even though their status had changed to part-time and then back to fulI-
time, should be credited with service for the pmpose of determining sick leave entitlement under the
collecti ve agreement was raised at a Labour Management meeting. That inquiry was answered by the
Employcr in writing on July 5, 2000 (Ex. 3) as follows:
4
Upon transfelTing to full time, accmal of sick leave benefits shall commence on the date of
transfer to the full time position and pay in lieu of sick leave will cease. Previous length of
service is not used in determining amounts in the sick leave bank.
A transfer to part time would result in the commencement of pay in lieu of sick leave andthe
cessation paid sick leave (sic) and the cancellation of any balances in the sick leave bank.
The Union took issue with that interpretation in a letter dated July 25,2000 (Ex. 4). Its position was
that the change in status did not affect "continuous service", the criterion for sick leave accrual in
Article 25.04. The parties disagreed and the grievance was filed.
The relevant provisions ofthe current collective agreement (Ex. 1) to which I was referred in
argument afe set out below;
1.03 "EmployeesU shall mean persons identified in Article 2.01 of this Agreement
as members of the bargaining unit.
1.04 A "Full-time Employee" is one who is employed for an indefinite 'duration of
time to work the full prescribed homs as specified in this Collective
Agreement.
1.05 A "Part-time Employee" is one who is employed for an indefinite duration and
who is scheduled to work normally les~ than full-time hours.
1.14 Part-time, temporary and casual employees shall be covered by the provisions
ofthis agreement lmless otherwise stated, amended or where specific reference
is made in articles as to that article's appiicability to certain employee group
or groups. '
2.01 The Employer recognizes the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent of all
non-professional employees (support staff) of the Canadian Blood -Services
working at or out of the Toronto, London, Hamilton an~ Ottawa Blood
Services Centres, together with all employees hired to work ill or out of
specific locations outside the boundaries ofthe aforementioned Blood Services
Centres as set out in the Celiificate issued by the Labour Relations Board of
Ontario dated the 8th day of August, 1994 employed as Clinic Assistants,
Clerical Staff, Trailsport Staff, LaboratOlY' Helpers, Data Enby Clerks and
Utility Persons, Tclerccruiters save and except Co-ordinators, Supervisors,
Assistant Supervisors, Administrative Assistants performing supervisory
functions or involved in confidential matters related to labour relations and
persons ernployed above these ranks,
5
15.02 c) Seniority shall only be applicable within a Blood Centre, Region or at a
permanent location for the purpose of vacation scheduling, in cases of._
promotion, the filling of vacancies (subject to Article 16.01 b), transfers,
layoffs and. recall.
15.03 An employee shall lose her seniority and her employment sh~ll be deemed to
have been terminated if she:
a) - quits for any reason;
,
b) is discharged for just cause and is not reinstated through the grievance
procedure or arbitration;
c) has been on lay-off for more than twelve (12) months, however, if an employee
is rehired by a Centre within a fmther twelve (12) months she shall be credited
with the seniority she has earned prior to her termination;
d) fails to report to work within fourteen (14) calendar days after being notified
by the Employer. . . following a lay-off;
e) fails to retum to work upon termination of an authorized leave ofilbsence and
fails to notifY the Employer that she is unable to retnrn to work within five (5)
working days following the termination of the leave due. to circumstances
beyond her control;
f) fails to retum to work after an unauthorized absence of three (3) working days;
g) retires;
h) meets the conditions outlined under Article 23.05 e).
15.07 A part-time or temporary employ'ee changing her status shall be credited with
seniority eamed on the basis of each 1950 hours worked equals one year of
seniority prorated as necessary.
15.08 'A full-time employee who changes her status shall be credited with seniority
earned on the basis of each year worked equals 1950 hours prorated as
necessary.
16.05 A part-time or temporary employee who is pemlanently transfened or is
promoted to a full-time position will be entitled to participate in the insured
benefit plan and Pension Plan commencing on the date of transfer subject to
the rules and regulations outlincd in those plans and the applicable articles
unrler this collective ngrecmenL ACCll]nj of sick lenve benefits shnll also
17.04 d)
17.05
25.04
6
cOlnmence on the date of transfer to the full-time position. For the purpose of
vacation entitle~ent the employee's accrued seniority in the part-time or
temporalY position will be applied.
Full-time employees who are lai~ off, if they so desire, may b~mp to part~time
status in their same job classification. The employee bumped as a result of this
transfer will only be eligible for the recall rights as provided for in Article
17.06. On transfer to part-time status, such employees will be credited with
their accumulated full-time seniority on the basis of each year \vorked being
equal to 1950 hours worked. They shall also retain their rights to be recalled
to full-time employment subject to Article 17.06 (a) (ii) and (iii).
Laid off employees will not accrue or be entitled to any benefits under this
agreement with the exception of recall rights. . msmed benefits the employee
was participating in immediately prior to the layoff, excluding LTD, may be
continued for a period or six (6) policy months following the layoff. The
employee must make alTangements with the Employer for the prepayment of
the full cost of premi ums (Employers ( sic) and employees (sic ) share) to ensme
such continuing coverage. Employees shall accrue seniority in accordance
with Article 15.04 d).
Based on continuous service, sick leave credits will accme to each employee
as listed below. One (1) day of accmed sick leave shall be credited as seven
and one 11alf(7.5) hours in the employee's sick banle
Length of .
Service
Less than 1 year
.,100%
Salary
5 days
75%
Salary
5 days
66-2/3% .
Salmy
1 year
10 days.
20 days
45 days
5 years
30 days
80 days
10 years.
55 days
155 days
15 years
80 days
180 days
20 years
105 days
155 days
7
25 years
130 days
130 days
25.1 0
Upon telmination of employment all sick leave shall be cancelled and no
. payment shall be que therefore.
25.11 a)
The sick benefits outlined in this article shall not apply to part-time; temporalY
and casual employees. However, an employee must report sick absences
without pay to their supervisor in accordance with Article 25.02 above.
b)
Part-time, temporary and casual employees shall be paid two percent (2%) pay
in lieu of sick leave; based on the applicable straight time earnings as outlined
in Article 23.03a)~
The Union contends that there is portability of service for the purpose of sick leave accrual
where there is no break in employment but changes in status from full-time to part-time and back to
full-time. It argued that Article 16.05 provides for the accrual of sick leave benefits upon being
transferred to full-time and that Article 25.04 provides for the manner in which those.benefits are to
be accrued; that is, based on "continuous service", It submitted that "continuous service" should be
given its dictionary definition or common usage application in that an employee should be considered
to be in the continuous service of an employer fi-om the date ?f hire throughout the unintenupted
employment relationship. It also contended that "continuous service" should be defined in the context
of the collective agreement as a whole and that the collective agreement provides a formula for
detennining seniority and benefits when an employee's status changes from part-time to full-time and
vice versa.
The Ullionrefened to Articles 15.07; 15.08 a~d 16.05 as speaking to the issue of seniority and
the benefits that flow from that. It submitted that the absence of any such conversion table that relates
to "continuous service" or of any article in the collective agreement that says employees lose "service"
by changing status while continuing their employment is significant and shows that there is no express
restriction on the accumulation of "continuous service",
8
The Employer's view is that the clear language ot'the collective agreement provides that for
the purpose of Article 25.04 "continuous service)) is limited to full-time service, and in the alternative
that under the pr~visions of the collective agreement which was in force at the tinie of the layoffs, and
which applied only to full-time employees, seniolity and employment was lost after twelve months
from being laid 'off, resulting in a loss of all full-time sick credits. At the time of the layoffs in
question the collective agreement in force (Ex. 6) provided for separate bargaining units for full-time
and part-time employees. The bargaining units were combined in the collective agreement which
succeeded that (Ex. 7) and there has been only' a single bargaining unit since then. The Employer
further pointed out that the Union i~ claiming a substantial and expensive benefit and the onus is on
it to show that there was a clear mutual intention to provided the benefit to these employees.
. -
The Employer submitted that Article 25 does distinguish between full-time and part-time
employees. and that Article 25.11 is a clear indication that the article is only for full-time employees,
as Article 1.14 contemplates. It argued that when Article 25.04 is read in conjunction with
A.rticle25.11, the only reasonable interpretation is that continuous full-time service is what is refen-ed
to in Article 25.04. The Employer took the position that the cQllective agreement read as a whole
supported ~hat view, in that Article 25.10 provided for no payment and cancellation of sick leave
credits on telmination,and that this would be applicable only to full-time employees. It also pointed
to Article 16.05 as setting out what employees who change status fi:om part-time to.full-time get and
providing for the start of the accrual of sick benefits rather than for the continuation or resumption of
that accrual. By way of contrast, the Employer pointed to what that article says about vacation
entitlement, which clearly provides for the application of accrued seniority. The Employer argued thai
where the collective agreement intended time as a part-time employee to be portahle it said so clearly
9
and that this :implies that the parties did not agree that accmed seniority as a part-time employee would
be taken into account in calculating sick leave benefits. The Employer also referred to Articles 17.04
(d) and 17.05 as indicating what a full-time employee retains on layoff. It said that Article 17.05 is
a' clear indication that laid off employees are not entitled to benefits except as provided.
The Employer argued that A.1iicle 25.04 and the other provisions cited by the Union do not
support the Union's interpretation and that the Union was not able to discharge the onus on it to
establish that the parties intended that employees would continue to accrue sick leave benefits available
for full-time employees when they ceased being' full-time employees. It asserted that there has been
no breach of A.1ticle 25.04 and that there is no evidence of any breach of A.1ticle 15.03 because there
is no evidence that anyone lost seniority contrary to it. It submitted that the Union was confusing
seniority and service, and that Article 15 .02( c) clearly sets out the circmllstances where seniority will
be applicable and does not allow seniority to be used to establish sick leave entitlement, which is what
it says that the Union is hying to do.
As a further position, the Employer submitted that, when the provisions of the collective
agreement in force at the time of the layoff are examined, it is cl.ear.t~at "employees;' as used in that
agreement applied only to full-time employees and that employment was terminated after recall rights
expired. TIlat collective agreement also contained provisions regarding the accrual of sick leave based
on continuous service and provided that on temunation of employment all accumulated sick leave was
cancelled and there was no payout. The Employer submitted that the collective agreement wluch
applied to part-time employees (Appendix A to Ex. 6) expressly provided which benefits under thc
full-tiine agreement applied to part-time employees and said that there was no provision for continuing
rights to f1Ccruc or receive sick leave in that agreement.
10
In reply the Union submitted that it was not trying to equate service and seniority and that the
collective agreement was very specific in separating the concepts. It argued thatArticle 25.04 contains
strong language isolating contiriuous service from the conversion provisions. It also, pointed out that
although there is a substantial benefit in the sick leave provisions it is not paid unless someone
becomes ill, and the increase in tandem with continuous service reflects the commitment the employee
has to the Employer. It also said that there was no termination of employment in fact here as shown
by the letters filed, and that there is a violation of Article 15.03 insofar as the Employer has deemed
a tennination of employment undei Article 15.03(c).
The parties cited the following cases in support of their arguments: Re Wellaltd County
General Hospital and Ontario Nurses' Association (1986),24 L.A.C.(3d) 421 (T. A, B. Jolliffe);Re
Salvation Army GNlCe Hospital ami Ontario Nurses' Assoc. (1986),24 L.A,C,(3d) 318 (Roberts);
Re Government oftheProviltce of British Columbia (GoverltmentEmployeeRelations Bureau) and
Pl'ofessionalEmployees' Association (1985),19 L.A.C.(3d) 347 (Thompson, B.C.); andReDouglas
Mem orial Hospital an d C a nadimt Union of Pll bUc Employees, Locill153 (1991), 19 L.A. C. (4th) 14
-(R. D. Brown). In reaching my decisioJl I have considered only-the ,evidence placed before me, the
collective agreement, the submissions of the parties, and the authorities'cited.
Both the Weiland General and Salvatioll Army cases dealt with the same contract language
and both relied heavily 011 an lUlTeported 1986 decision of Arbitrator E. B. Jolliffe in Re Olltario
Nurses' Assoc. AmI Hospital. Comm'll Sal'llia General Ho,vpital, which dealt with that same
agreement. TIle cases concerned the calculation of service of nurses whose employment with their
respective hospitals was LUllIltenupted but whose status had been both part-time and full-time in some
combinations. Both hospitals had an insurance pInn covering short term disability uuder which the
11
percentage of payment during sick leave varied with years of service. The basic collective agreement
language being intelpreted provided that (1) seniority would be retained upon transfer from part-time
to full-time and vice versa, (2) when going from full-time to part-time there was a conyersion fonnula
for seniority and language which said that that the formula was "for"the pmposes ofthe application of
seniority, if any, 'under the Agreement but not for the purposes of service under any provisions of the
Collective A~eement (save as expressly provided otherwise in this Agreement)" (see Art. 10 as
reproduced at p. 319 of Salvation Army), and (3) when going from part-time to full-time seniority
would be credited on the basis ofthe conversion fOlIDula, but did not contain the language reproduced
in (2) above.
Both cases cited the passage from ArbitratorE. B. Jolliffe's award where he cited Arbitrator
MacDowell in an unrepOlted decision in Ryerson Polyteclmical Institute to this effect in connection
with the proposition that "service" should be intelpreted in collective agreements with the same
strictness that "seniority" is because of the importance of the concept
Arbitrators have applied this approach to the interpretation of the word 'service', and
have almost unanimously held that, in the absence.of specific contractual language to the
contrary, the telm must be given its plain meaning and includes all service with the employer
whether or not 'in the bargaining unit. Thus, phrases such as 'length of service with the
.Company' . . . and 'accumulated service with.the company'., . . havc been read literally to
include all forms of service. . ,
(See Wellaud at page 437 and Salvation Army at pages 320 - 321)
Both Arbitrators T. Jolliffe and Roberts dealt with the policy and/or equitable considerations
in the following ways:
I am also unable to agree that there is any policy argmnent to be made out here. . . that
it would be simply unfair for a persoll , . . who had worked several years as a casual or part-
timer to imrnediately qualify for 100% benefits on transfer to full-time cmployment. An equal
policyargulllent could be made from the other side that it would be unL1ir for a person who
had workcd several years as a full-time moving to part-time for a short while and back to fuIl-
time before going on sick leave fa suff!)r lhe conseqllentialloss of her previously (lchieved
12
. 100% benefit level. I would think it best to let the full-time agreement speak for itselfand shy
away fi.-om clouding the issue by injecting policy Concerns.
(We/land at p. 439)
Counsel for the hospitaf made a further subullssion that it would be inequitable to allow
a nurse who changed from part-time to full-time status to claim sick pay based upon his or her
total accumulated "service" with the hospital. TIllS inequity, it was submitted, resided in the
fact that while on part-time status, the nurse received an additional 14% of wages as payment
in lieu of benefits. The inequity, however, is difficult to see - at least with respectto sick
leave. So far as this arbitrator is aware, the percentage in lieu of benefits was intended as a
rough-and-ready measure of compensation to part-time nurses for their lack of access to the
benefit package in any particular year. It was not necessarily intended to compensate them for
being denied the progressive increase in benefits which they would have received if their
"service'; had been in the full-time bargaining unit. fudeed, it would seem, that in most cases
the equities would fall the o'ther way, that it would be more inequitable to require a long-term
employee to accept benefits at the level given to a probationer merely because their "service"
was accumulated in the part-time bargaining unit.
(palvation Army at p. 323-4)
The Government of British Columbia case concerned the effect of a resignation ~ollowed by
re-employment after a period of time. The case held that, unless the collective agreement provided
othelwise, accrued sick leave credits would be lost on termination of employmen~. Of more
significance is the Douglas Memorial case which dealt the ~ccrual of service based sick leave
entitlement when an employee's status changed during a continuous period of employment. The
relevant language in that case (article 9.07), is reproduced at page 15:
. For application of seniority for purposes of promotion, demotion, transfer, layoff and recall and
service for purposes of vacation entitlement and wage progression:
(i) an employee whose status is changed fl.-om full-time to part-time shall receive full
credit for his seniority and service;
(ii) an employee whose status is changed from part-time to full-time shall receive credit
for his seniority and service on the basis of one year for each 1725 hours worked.
At page 19 Arbitrator Brown found:
. , . The collective agreement, however, does not provide the right upon an employee's transfer
Crom the part-time to the full-time bargaining unit to use service with the hospital in the part.
13
time bargaining unit for the purposes of a benefit claim under the provisions for the full-time.
employees on either a calendar 01' conversion basis. In the wage progression for part-time
employees, it is indicated that one year is equivalent to 1,725 hours worked. A similar formula
has not been included by the parties in art. 9.07 for the application of part-time service credits
to benefits applicable to full-time employees. . .
In the Ryel'solJ award, supra, reference is made to the requirement for strict
construction of contractual terms. We can agree with the proposition in that case that "service"
includes -all service whether or not in the bargaining unit for the puiposes of construmg the
articles of this collective agreement. But at issue here, is how that service gained by
employment in the part-time bargaining unit can be applied if afall, to the benefit provisions
available for full-,time employees only. . . .
As always, while the casyS might provide some guidance, each case will depend on the specific
collective agreement language. In this collective agreement Articles 15.07 and 15.08 provide
conversion fOlmulas for the purposes of seniority being credited on transfer from full-time to parHime
and vice vers~. The provisions are silent as to "service" or "continuous service". Article ,16.05 deals
with transfers to full-time from part-time specifically in the context ofbenefits. It provides as follows:
(1) for the "insured benefit plan and Pension Plan" entitlement to pmticipate commences
on the date of transfer;
(2) "accrual of sick leave benefits shall also connnence on the date oftransfer to the fulI-
time position";
(3) for vacation entitlement acclUed senioritY as a part-time or temporary employee will
apply.
Hence we know tllat the parties have not provided a fOllliula for converting "service" when
employees change status, and that they have provided for what happens with benefits when the status
changes from part-time to full-time. In particul<lf, they have provided that sick leave benefits will start
to accrue on the date of the transfer and that accrued seniority will be used to calculate vacation
entitlement.
14
The pal1ies have also provided in Article 25.11 (a) that sick benefits as set out in the article will
not apply to part-time employees, and have instead provided in 25.11 (b) that part-time employees will
receive a percentage payment in lieu of si~k leave. Therefore, sick benefits do not ac~rue to parHime
employees while they are part-time employees but accrual comniences on becoming a full-time
employee. This is further reinforced by Article 17.05, which provides that laid off employees wiII not
accrue benefits under the collective agreement. Therefore, a laid off filII-time employee wiII not accme
or be entitled to sick leave benefits even if she continues her employment by becoming' a part-time
employee.
Article 25.10 provides, that yvhen employment ceases there is no payout of accrued sick leave
but that it is cancelled as of that date. When the parties refer to "telmination of employment" in that
article, it is reasona~le to conclude that they are speaking of the telmination of full-time elllployment
because no part-time employee has any accrued sick leave to cancel.
ill this collective agreement, as in the Douglas case the parties have distinguished between
seniority and service and have not provided foy any conversion f01U1Ula in relation to the calculation
of service for the purpose of sick leave accrual upon transferring from palJ-time to full-time
employment. I am particularly struck by the wording of Article 16.05, where the parties have clearly
provided that upon, transfer from part-time to full-time vacation entitlement will be based on accrued
seniority but have only provided that sick leave accrual wiII "commence!> on transfer.. That prospec tive
provision together with the express exclusion of part-time employees from the sick leave benefits set
out in Article 25111eans that "each employee" refelTed to in Article 25.04 is "each full-time employee".
If accrual commences upon becoming a full-time employee, by definition it cannot oeem while a part-
time employee. Hence il would be rellso11llble to intelvret Article 25.04 as llpplying to continuous fuH-
15
time service only. That would be logically consistent with Article 25.10, which provides that sick
leave accrual is cancelled upon the termination offull-time employment) and with Article 17,05, which
'J
~ ~'
(",I
fl
i .\
: \
, "\
would preclude laid off full-time employees from being entitled to any of the bene.fits of full-time
employment.
It is therefore my conclusion that) like the Douglas case this is a sihtation where the collective
agreement does not provide for the application of service as a part-time employee to a benefit which
the partie"s have clearly reserved for full-time employees - a benefit of full-time emploYment.
For all ofthe reasons set out above, the grievance is denied.
DATED AT LONDON, ONTARIO THIS 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2001.
Gail Brent
CANADIAN BLOOD SERVICES & OPSEUJ LOCAL 106
ARBITRATOR BRENT
. The Union grieved the denial of the accural of sick leave benefitsJ
based on prior service when an employeeJs employme'nt status is
changed from full~time to part-time to full-time.
Collective agreement provides for the benefits which flow from
Hseniority/' and provides a conversion table for determining seniority
and benefits when an employee's status changes from part-time to
full-time and vice versa.
Sick leave credits entitlement is based on "continuous s'erviceH and
not seniority.
GRIEVANCE DENIED: Collective Agreement is silent as to "servicel1
or l'continuous service,." there is no formula for converting service.
Other provisions of the collective agreement provide that part-time
employee is not-entitled to sick leave benefitsJ but rather payment in
lieu ofJ and that sick leave .accural "commencesu on transfer from
part-time to full time status.
December 2001.