Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 11-11-30IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION brought pursuant to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, 1995, as amended (Grievance #2011-0483-0001) BETWEEN: PROVIDENCE CARE (ST. MARY’S OF THE LAKE HOSPITAL) (the “employer”) - and - ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION (the “union”) AWARD Sole Arbitrator: Marilyn A. Nairn Hearing held: November 25, 2011 (Kingston, Ontario) APPEARANCES For the union: Boris Bohuslawsky For the employer: Ron Pearson 1 AWARD 1. OPSEU (the “union”) filed this group grievance on behalf of employees (the “grievors”) employed as Discharge Planning Coordinators with Providence Care at its St. Mary’s of the Lake Hospital facility (the “employer” or the “hospital”). The parties were agreed that I have the jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. They were also agreed that, in the interest of expediting the release of this decision, reasons were not required. 2. The grievance alleges that changes implemented by the hospital have resulted in substantial changes in the job content of the Discharge Planning Coordinator position. 3. The hospital is a non-acute health care facility for persons living in southwestern Ontario. It specializes in rehabilitation, specialized geriatric services, complex continuing care, and palliative care. Services extend across the full continuum of care – in-patient, out-patient, and work in the community. 4. On April 8, 2008 the employer posted a vacant full-time Discharge Planning Coordinator position for the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Program. One of the grievors, Julie Evoy, was successful in that competition and commenced employment as a full-time Discharge Planning Coordinator on June 9, 2008. 5. On or about September 21, 2009, the employer posted a vacancy for a regular part-time (0.7 FTE) Discharge Planning Coordinator position for the Complex Continuing Care and Specialized Geriatric Services programs. The grievor, Kathy Richard, who had worked as a casual Discharge Planning Coordinator beginning on June 3, 2008, was successful in that competition and commenced employment as a regular part-time Discharge Planning Coordinator on September 30, 2009. 6. On or about May 13, 2010, the employer advised the grievors that it was revising the Discharge Planning Coordinator position and that the position title was also being changed to Intake/Discharge Planning Coordinator to more adequately reflect the nature of the work of the 2 position. This grievance was brought pursuant to Article 14.04 of the collective agreement in order to establish an appropriate rate for this changed position. 7. Article 14.04 of the collective agreement provides in part: a) If during the term of this Agreement a new classification in the bargaining unit is established by the Hospital or the Hospital makes a substantial change in the job content of an existing classification which in reality causes such classification to become a new classification, the Hospital shall advise the Union of such new or changed classification and the rate of pay established…. b) Where the Union challenges the pay rate established by the Hospital, the dispute concerning the pay rate may be submitted to arbitration as provided in Article 10. c) Any change in the pay rate…shall be made retroactive to the time at which the new or changed classification was first filled. 8. In Thunder Bay (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 87 (Clubhouse Employees Grievance), (2000) 86 L.A.C. (4th) 289 (Sarra), the arbitrator commented: 33 In terms of new job classifications, arbitrators have held that one must look to the specific language of the collective agreement to determine the obligations of parties regarding new classifications...Absent specific language to the contrary, arbitrators have held that management has the right to determine the appropriate rate for a new job classification. Where, however, the collective agreement provides that disputes with respect to wage rates of new classifications may be the subject of arbitration, arbitrators have held that their task is to replicate what the parties may have agreed to in negotiating a rate…. 9. There is no real dispute that the job content has substantially changed. The only issue is the appropriate rate of pay. Having received the representations of the parties, I hereby find that the wage grid for the Discharge Planning Coordinator set out in Schedule A of the collective agreement shall be replaced with the following wage grid for the Intake/Discharge Planning Coordinator. Having regard to the wage grid commencing April 1, 2010 of the last year of this collective agreement, that grid shall be as follows: Effective April 1, 2010 36.429 37.455 38.480 39.506 40.532 41.557 3 10. There is no dispute that the grievors are at the top rate of their current wage grid and would appropriately be placed at the top of any new wage grid. The changed classification took effect on May 13, 2010. Therefore, I further direct that the grievors be placed at the top of the Intake/Discharge Planning Coordinator wage grid and be paid retroactively to May 13, 2010 the difference between their Discharge Planning Coordinator rate and the appropriate rate established for the Intake/Discharge Planning Coordinator position. 11. I will remain seized with respect to any issue arising out of the implementation of this award. Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 30th day of November, 2011. __________________________________________ Marilyn A. Nairn, Arbitrator.