HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 02-07-22
IN THE MATTER OF A MEDIATION-ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION
(The Employer)
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
(The Union)
BEFORE:
Hon. George W. Adams, Q.C.
APPEARANCES:
For the Employer:
Jolm Saunders, Counsel
Eric Preston, Vice-President, Corp. & Human Resources
Jack Julien, Manager, Human Resources
Greg Volkes, Employee Relations
For the Union:
Boris Bohuslawsky, Agent
Brian Gould, OPSEU Negotiator
Jennifer Reid, Vice-Chair, UMC
William WalTen, Grievor
Diane Goody, Grievor
Proceedings conducted in Toronto on July 12, 2002
AWARD
Four areas are in dispute between the parties:
(i) the mallller in which the employer has administered the posting of the
Customer Service Representative (CSR) positions created by the protocol
dated August 16, 2002;
(ii) the extent ofthe employer~s right to determine the "exit date' of
applicants to the VEO program;
(iii) the interpretation of para, 8(e) of the protocol which permits the employer
to refuse access to the Voluntary Exit Opportunity (VEO) program to
employees having a "Factor 80~~ pension entitlement; and
(iv) the scope of employee's entitlement to educational assistance pursuant to
para. 10 of the protocol.
Extensive briefs and documentation were filed and exchanged by both parties
prior to attending before me on July 12, 2002. My authority to entertain these matters is
confined to art. 14 of the August 16,2002 Protocol entered into between the parties. I
mediated that protocol- an agreement ratified by the parties effective September 14,
2001. Art, 14 reads, in part:
George Adams will remain seized of any policy grievance or
complaint regarding the implementation ofthis Protocol. He
will deal with any such grievance or complaint in a summary
way, after considering such representation or material as he
considers appropriate. He may adopt a mediation/arbitration
fonnat ifhe thinks it is warranted,
In respect ofthese proceedings, I adopted a mediation/arbitration format to which
the parties consented in writing.
Having reviewed the submissions of the parties and all the material and further
representations provided on July 12, 2002, T aW:=tHllhe f()lIowin~'
2
1) With respect to the CSR issues in the filings and correspondence
before me, I have concluded I do not have jurisdiction having
received the undertaking of the employer thatj before Arbitrator
McDowellj it will not raise a timeliness obj ection under art. 10 of
the collective agreement in respect of the location issue and the
undertaking of the union that the employer maYj howeverj raise
before Arbitrator McDowell (i) a claim of prejudice in respect of
this issue due to alleged delay of the union and employees in
, raising this matter and (ii) a claim of lack of detriment to
employees evidenced by this same alleged delay.
2) With respect to the VEO program exit date issuej (i) the Wilson
grievance is dismissed without prejudice to Wilson's right to
reapply pursuant to the new rule going fonvard; (ii) all active
employees with a departure date and all employees who have
departed pursuant to a departure date, who did not file grievances
contesting their departure dates, are bound by their assigned
departure dates, shall not have access to the new rule going
fonvard, and, for greater certainty, cannot now grieve on the basis
of the new rule going fonvard and (Hi) existing grievors only such
as Caddo and Poirier, may return to work within two (2) weeks of
being notified and work the remainder of the sixteen weeks
calculated as set out below from the date of their original
application for a departure date in respect to which they grieved.
The new rule for exit datesj on a going fonvard basis only from
the date of issuance of this award, shall be that an employee must
select a departure date falling within the Protocol's duration and
within sixteen (16) weeks of the date ofthe employee's application
save for exceptional circumstances (e.g. pregnancy).
As provided for in (iii) above, all existing grievors as of July 12,
2002 shall be entitled to sixteen (16) weeks of work as a regular
employee, less the amount of time they worked between their
original date of application for departure and their actual departure
date. All time between these grievors' termination dates and dates
ofretum to work shall be treated as unpaid leave of absences.
3) With respect to the VEO program Factor 80 issue, all such
gdevances are hereby dismissed. Art. 8(e) of the Protocol refers to
Factor 80 in respect of the OPSEU Pension Trust (OPT) only. To
be exempted from rcceiving the VEO, it is not necessary for the
employee to be also eligible to retire pursuant to a factor 80 under
the Ont:'lrio Municipal Employees Re11ftcl!lclit SYtiiern (OIviERS).
3
4) With respect to an employee~s scope of entitlement to educational
assistance pursuant to art. 10 of the Protocol, I have determined the
following:
(i) All such courses must have been applied for after
the date of ratification of the Protocol (Le.
September 14,2001) and all grievances asserting
the contrary are hereby dismissed.
(ii) Regular and temporary employees qualify for
assistance provided they are employed in
redundant classifications. The Philips grievance is
dismissed because I have found that the einployee
was not employed in a redundant classification
within the meaning of the Protocol.
(iii) If an employees application for an education
subsidy is made and approved while the employee
is an employee, the subsidy can be enjoyed after
the employee terminates employment provided
that the course commences within three months of
approval. The parties shall review the facts of the
Skinner grievance to determine whether or not
they fall within this rule. I retain jurisdiction to
resolve this grievance by a telephone conference
call.
(iv) A successful applicant shall be reimbursed within
thirty (30) days after having provided the
employer with the receipt documenting the
expenditure. The Diane Goody grievance is
allowed on the following terms. The grievor shall
provide to Eric Preston her correspondence to
former supervisor Jim Gilio and Cilio's reply
correspondence to her confirming that he had
previously advised her that she would not be
eligible for an educational subsidy because she
was eligible to retire under Factor 80. Should the
correspondence be so confirming, the grievor will
be entitled to and the employer shall pay the
appropriate educational subsidy in respect of the
York University Mediation Program for the next
offering available to her.
4
(v) Provided that an employee is employed in a
redundant classification when approved for an
educational subsidYI the employer shall pay the
subsidy regardless of whether the employee is
employed in a redundant or non-redundant
classification at the time of taking the course in
question. Accordingly, the Begley grievance is
allowed. The employer shall pay this educational
allowance as requested.
5) I retain jurisdiction to entertain all differences over the
implementation of this award pursuant to my authority under the
Protocol and this'specific retention of jurisdiction.
Dated at Toronto this ZZnd day of July, 2002.
-~~
5