The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007-3961.Hollingsworth et al.11-12-13 Decision Crown Employees rieva nce Settlement oard 1Z8 l. (416) 326-1388 x (416) 326-1396 t des griefs es employés de la t Z8 l. : (416) 326-1388 léc. : (416) 326-1396 GS UNION#2008-0212-0008, 2008-0212-0009, 2008-0212-0037, 2008-0212-0038, 2008-0212-0039 IN THE MATTER ARBITRATION THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD ETWEEN G B Suite 600 180 Dundas St. West Toronto, Ontario M5G Te Commission de règlemen d Couronne Bureau 600 180, rue Dundas Oues Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1 Té Té Fa B#2007-3961, 2007-3962, 2007-3963, 2007-3964, 2008-3229, 2008-3230, 2008-3231, 2008-3232 2008-0212-0010, 2008-0212-0011, 2008-0212-0036, OF AN Under B Ontario Pes Union (Hollingsworth et al) Union (Ministry of Attorney General) Employer ublic Service Employe - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario BEFORE Felicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION ice Employees Union FOR THE EMPLOYER Stephen Giles Ontario Public Serv Grievance Officer Services ractice Group Peter Dailleboust Ministry of Government Labour P Counsel HEARING October 6, 2011. - 2 - Decision [1] In the collective bargaining negotiations that took place in 2005, the parties agreed to insert a new Appendix 32 into the Collective Agreement. That provision provided for a change of status for a number of employees from fixed term to the new category of “flexible part time” (hereinafter referred to as “FPT”). At the outset the Employer referred to this initiative as the “Revitalized Workforce Project” (“RWP”). As of January 1, 2008 it has been commonly known as “Integrated Labour Relations Strategy” or “ILRS”. [2] This change brought about many employee questions and ultimately, a number of disputes/grievances. [3] By all accounts, there were a number of areas in the initial language of Appendix 32 that required clarification. Accordingly, in an effort to continue to work together through many of the identified problem areas, the parties negotiated a series of agreements regarding the various matters needing to be addressed. Additionally, in an ongoing effort to resolve outstanding issues that continued to arise, amendments were made to Appendix 32 in the next (and now current) Collective Agreement. [4] On September 13, 2007, the parties agreed to a number of amendments in a fairly comprehensive Memorandum of Agreement. This Agreement resolved the identified disputes that had been outstanding and further recognized that future grievances might arise. In large measure, the amendments agreed upon in the September 13, 2007 Memorandum of Agreement were incorporated into Appendix 32 of the current Collective Agreement. [5] Since September of 2007, approximately two hundred grievances have been filed. In an effort to resolve these matters efficiently, the parties - 3 - worked together to create a process for the efficient litigation of all outstanding issues. To that end, a number of grievances have been heard and decided by the Board. Those decisions have resolved a number of outstanding matters. [6] Given the passage of time and the number of grievances that had yet to be determined, the parties agreed that it was in their collective interest to further streamline the litigation process. In considering various options, it was agreed to investigate the possibility of adopting a process similar to that utilized by the Union and the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services regarding “transition grievances”. Those grievances, which were many hundred in number, were filed as the result of the major re-organization within that Ministry. Given my experience in that process my assistance was sought in this matter. [7] At our hearing held on January 18, 2010, the parties agreed to a number of issues including:  All grievances outstanding as of January 18, 2010 and those filed in the foreseeable future flowing from the interpretation, application and administration of Appendix 32 will be referred to me for determination.  While it is understood that all decisions under this process will be consistent, they are without precedent or prejudice in accordance with Article 22.16.2.  I will determine the process to be followed for the litigation of these matters. [8] The process for the litigation of the remaining grievances should be efficient and provide a timely and appropriate final resolution. In arriving at my decision in this regard, consideration was given to Article 22.16.2 which states: - 4 - The mediator/arbitrator shall endeavour to assist the parties to settle the grievance by mediation. If the parties are unable to settle the grievance by mediation, the mediator/arbitrator shall determine the grievance by arbitration. When determining the grievance by arbitration, the mediator/arbitrator may limit the nature and extent of the evidence and may impose such conditions as he or she considers appropriate. The mediator/arbitrator shall give a succinct decision within five (5) days after completing proceedings, unless the parties agree otherwise. [9] As was the case in the “transition” process, there are a large number of grievances to determine and the parties are agreed that “traditional arbitration” will not serve their purpose. Therefore, in accordance with my jurisdiction to so determine, these matters will be litigated on the following basis:  Grievances are to be presented by way of each party presenting a statement of the facts with appropriate documents, if any, and accompanying submissions. I understand that in many cases, particulars have been provided and documents exchanged. That preparatory work should further assist efficiency.  I recognize that some grievors and managerial employees may wish to attend and provide oral evidence. However, given the task at hand and the time by which to do it, I order only the committee members from each party will attend.  It may be that in a few instances some confusion might arise regarding certain facts. It might also happen that I will find that insufficient evidence has been provided. In those instances, should they arise, I will direct the parties to speak again with their principles to ascertain the facts or the rationale behind the particular outstanding matter. In the event I find there is still - 5 - uncertainty regarding facts, I reserve the right to ask for viva voce evidence. It is my hope that this need shall never arise.  Hopefully decisions can be issued within a relatively short period of time following submissions. My decisions will contain brief reasons and sufficient rationale so as to provide the parties with an interpretation thereby allowing them to move forward. [10] On January 13, 2011 this Board issued a decision dealing with grievances from Ms. Hollingsworth and others regarding their CSD and certain benefits that flow from that date. A supplemental issue that was not dealt with at that time has been brought back before the Board by agreement of the parties. This decision deals with the supplemental matter only. [11] Ms. Hollingsworth and two other Court Reporters contend that the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by failing to properly calculate vacation owing. [12] Specifically, it was asserted that the Employer did not calculate vacation entitlement properly for the three grievors until 2009. When the matter was brought to the attention of the Employer, the appropriate adjustments were made and the grievors were awarded the lost vacation days. [13] The only issue that remains outstanding is what damages, if any, ought to be given to the grievors as the result of the three years of incorrect vacation entitlement. - 6 - [14] It was the Union’s view that the grievors should receive damages for the opportunities lost to take their vacation during the years at issue. Indeed, at least one of the grievors took a leave of absence without pay for purposes of vacation. Further, they would have earned the vacation time at overtime rates as the grievors had all exceeded their annual hours plus ten percent (10%) in some years between 2006 and 2008. [15] The Union urged that, at the very least, the grievors are entitled to this pay differential. In this regard, the Employer was of the view that the grievors have been made whole and no further remedy is appropriate. However, it provided calculations for 2006, 2007 and 2008 that indicate what the grievors would be entitled to in the event that the Union’s argument is accepted. Those calculations show: Hollingsworth – 1.58 hours for 2006 - 6.9 hours for 2007 - 0 hours for 2008 Total 8.48 hours (3.07 days) vacation credit = $182.50 Dolan - 0 hours for 2006 - 9.58 hours for 2007 - 0 hours for 2008 Total of 9.58 hours (2.5 days) vacation credit =$250.90 Marceau - 0 hours for 2006 - 9.58 hours for 2007 - 0 hours for 2008 Total of 9.58 hours (2.5 days) vacation credit - $250.90 - 7 - [16] The Union reviewed and accepted the above calculations but urged the Board to award damages for lost opportunity in addition to the above amounts. [17] After consideration, I order the Employer to pay the grievors the above cash equivalents. I am of the view that this is not an instance where damages should be awarded. D ated at Toronto this 13th day of December 2011. Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair