The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCahill 14-11-11INTHEMATTEROFANARBITRATIONBETWEEN: ONTARIOPUBLICSERVICEEMPLOYEES'UNION,LOCAL487 (the"Union") -and RENFREWCOUNTY&DISTRICTHEALTHUNIT (the"HealthUnit") BEFORE: ChristineSchmidt,SoleArbitrator APPEARANCES FortheUnion: KimPatenaude,Counsel CynthiaCahill,Grievor FortheHealthUnit: LynnHarnden,Counsel EricaBennett,Student-at-law CatherineBloskie,Director.CorporateServices CarlaWaiters,Manager,HealthPromotionandClinical Services PatRlpmeester,Coordinator,ClinicalServices(Retired) ThishearingwasheldinPembrokeonJune21,2011andOctober4,20tl. 2 AWARD 1.ThisawarddealswithanIndividualgrievancefiledbytheUniononbehalfof Ms.CynthiaCahlll,asecretaryintheHealthPromotionandClinicalServicesDivisionof theRenfrewDistrict&CountyHealthUnit(the"HealthUnit").Theissue,asframedby theparties,iswhethertheHealthUnitviolatedarticles15.01(d)and15.04(a)ofthe applicablecollectiveagreement.Ms.Cahlllwasnotpaidforthefinalhalfofaseven(7) hourshiftonDecember31,2009,orthreeandahalf(3.5)hours,althoughsheworked betweenapproximately10a.m.andnoonthatday.Asaremedy,theUnionseeks paymentofthreeandahalf(3.5)hoursofholidaypaytoMs.Cahlll. 2.Thepartiesagreethat!havebeenproperlyappointedunderthetermsofthe collectiveagreement,andthatIhavethejurisdictiontodeterminethematterbeforeme. 3.ThegrievancewasinitiallyframedasanallegationthattheHealthUnitviolated article15101(d)ofthecollectiveagreementbydenyingthreeandahalf(3.5)hoursof paytoMs.CahillfortheafternoonofDecember31,2009.TheUnionsoughttoamend thegrievanceattheoutsetofthehearing.TheHealthUnitdidnotobject.TheUnion clarifiedthatinadditiontoarticle15.04(d),italsosoughttorelyonarticle15.04(a).The Union'srevisedpositionwasthatthethreeandahalf(3.5)hourspayatissuewas holidaypay.Thehearingproceededonthatbasis. Relevantcollectiveagreementprovisions 3.TheHolidaysclauseinarticle15ofthecollectiveagreementprovides: 15.01(a) F,T./P.T Thefollowingshallberecognizedasholidaysforfull-timeandpart-time empToyees.Full-tlmeemproyeasshallreceivethedayoffwithpay.Part-time employeesshallreceivethedayoffwithpayonapro-ratabasis. NewYear'sDayLabourDay GoodFridayThanksgivingDay EasterMondayRemembranceDay VictoriaDayChristmasDay CanadaDayBoxingDay CivicHoliday 3 (d)Inadditiontotheholidayslistedinpart(a)above,full-timeandpart timeemployeesshallbeallowedtimeoffwithpayonapro-ratabasisforthefinalhalfofaseven(7)hourshiftthatoccursontheday immediatelyprecedingChristmasDayandNewYear'sDay.Ifan employeeisrequlradtoworkafullshiftonthedayImmediately precedingChristmasDayand/orNewYear'sDayonehalfoftheshift shallbepaldattherateoftimeandone-half. 15.o4(a) F.T.IP.T. Inorderforafull-timeorpart-timeemployeetoqualifyforholiday pay,theemployeemusthaveworkedhls/herregularlyscheduledworkingdayImmediatelypreced]ngandfol[owlngtheholiday,unless he/shehasareasonablecauseforfallingtoworkallsuchdays. Facts 4.TheUnionandtheHealthUniteachcalledonewitness.TheUnionpresentedits evidencefirstandcalledMs.Cahill.Ms.CarlaWaiters,themanageroftheHealth PromotionandClinicalServicesDivision(the"Divislon"),testifiedonbehalfofthe HealthUnit.BothMs.CahillandMs.Waitershavebeenemployedintheirrespective capacitiesformorethanadecade.TheyworkoutoftheHealthUnit'smainofficein Pembroke.OtherofficesarelocatedinRenfrewandBarry'sBay. 5.TheHealthUnitprovidespublichealthservicestotheresidentsofRenfrew District&County.TheDivisionrunsanumberofprograms,includinghealthy babies/healthychildren,animmunizationprogramandadentalprogram.Officehours runfrom8:30a.m.to4:00p.m.,MondaytoFriday.Ms.Cahillisthesecretaryassigned totheImmunizationprogram.ShereportstoMs.PatRipmeester,coordinatorfor clinicalservices,whointurnreportstoMs.Waiters. 6.Ms.Cahillisonesecretaryofathreepersonclericalteam.Sheistheleast seniormemberoftheteam.HercounterpartsareMs.ArleneGrosskleg,assignedto thehealthybabies/healthychildrenprogramandmainreception,andMs.Sandy Brazeau,assignedtothedentalprogramandbackuptomainreception.Inadditionto carryingoutvariousdutiesintheirrespectivelyassignedareas,thesesecretaries 4 providebackuptoeachotherasneeded.Eachreportstoadifferentsupervisoror coordinator. 7.Theprocessforschedulingstaffleavesisasfollows.Twiceyearly,inNovember andMay,theHealthUnitdistributesamemotostaff.Staffmembersareexpectedto speakwitheachothertohelpdetermineadequatecoverage.Eachthenproposestheir leavesanddeliversacompletedleaverequestformtotheirrespectivesupervisor.The supervisorsthenmeettogoovertherequests.WhengapsareIdentifiedandconflicts arise,theyconsultwithMs.Walters.Togetherthemanagementteammakesa determinationastowhetheroperationalrequirementscanbemet.Basedonthis determination,themanagementteamdecidestoapprove,amendordecline-requests andcommunicatesitdecisiontostaffmembers. 8.Aspartoftheleaverequestform,thesecretariesareexpectedtohaveboththeir counterpartssignasanindicatortherequestingsecretary'sdutieswillbecovered duringtherequestedperiodofabsence.Asageneralrule,onlyonesecretaryonthe clericalteamcanbeoffatonetime.Thereisateamprotocolforcoveragewherebythe primarydutiesofeachsecretaryaredividedbetweenthetwootherclericalteam members.Onoccasion,theHealthUnithaspermittedaseniorsecretary(oneoftwo non-unionpositionsintheDivision)tosignoffasoneofthetwopersonstocoverthe dutiesofanabsentsecretaryontheclericalteam. 9.FortheChristmasHolidayperiodin2009,Ms.Cahll!submittedtwofloatday leaverequestsonNovember16,2009:onewasfrom8:30a.m.untilnoonon December24,2009,andtheotherwasfrom8:30a.m.untilnoononDecember31, 2009. 10.Priortosubmittingherleaverequests,andhavingpreviouslybeendeniedtime offifhercounterpartsrequestedit,Ms.Cahillsentanemailtohersupervisoron October14,2009.Ms.CahlllInformedMs.Ripmeestershewould"need"December24, 2009off.Shealsoindicatedshemay"need"moretimeoffgiventhatshedidnotyet knowwhetherherregularchildcareproviderwouldbeoperatingovertheChristmas 5 holidays.Ms.CahillsuggestedtoMs.Ripmeesterthatawomanwhohadpreviously providedcoverageintheRenfrewandBarry'sBayofficesmightbeanoptionfor coverageif"toomanyneedoff." !1.OnDecember2,2009,Ms.Cahill'sleaverequestforthemorningof December24,2009wasapproved.OnDecember3,2009,herrequestforthemorning ofDecember31,2009wasdeclined. 12.WithrespecttotherequestforDecember24,2009,Ms.BrazeauandMs.Llnda Caesista,aseniorsecretary,weresignatoriestoMs.Cahill'srequest.Theywerewilling toprovidecoveragetoMs.Cahlll.Bothseniorsecretarieswerescheduledtoworkon December24,2009,andforthatreasonMs.Cahtll'srequestwasapproved. t3.WithrespecttotheDecember31,2009request,whileMs.Grosskleghadsigned Ms.Cahilrsrequestformindicatingherwillingnesstocovertheshift,thesecond signatorywasMs.MarilynHalko,theotherseniorsecretary.However,Ms.Casslsta, Ms.Halko'scounterpart,hadalsorequestedleaveforDecember31,2009.Forthat reason,coupledwiththefactthatMs.Halkowouldalsobecoveringforasenior secretaryinanotherdivisionthatday,inadditiontootherconsiderationssetoutbelow, Ms.Cahill'srequestwasdeclined. 14.InassessingMs.Cahill'sleaverequestforthemorningofDecember31,2009, themanagementteamconsideredMs.Cahill'ssuggestionforcoveragebyasecretary whohadpreviouslyprovidedcoverageintheBarry'sBayandRenfrewoffices.Itsview, however,amongotherconsiderations,wasthatshedidnothavetherequisiteskillsto coverMs.Cahill'sduties.Withoutgoingintoextensivedetailabouttheoperational requirementsconsideredbythemanagementteam,theHealthUnithadexperienced difficultiesthepreviousyearwhentheDivisionwasdowntooneclericalteammember. TheH1N1outbreak/crisisthroughthefallandwinterof2009,andtheincreased demandsontheHealthUnitaswellasthepotential"unknowns"relatedtothatcrisis, wasafurtherconsiderationofthemanagementteam.AwareofMs.Cahilrsconcern aboutfindingchildcare,management'sviewwasthatMs.Cahillhadampletimeto 6 makechildcarearrangementsforthethreeandahalf(3.5)hourdayonDecember31, 2009.Therefore,asIhaveIndicated,Ms.Cahill'sleaverequestforDecember31,2009 wasdeclined. 15.Asmentionedabove,Ms.CahillhadrequestedMs.Halkobeoneofher signatoriesontheleaverequestforDecember31,2009.Thiswasbecause Ms.BrazeauhadsubmittedaleaverequestfortheperiodrunningfromDecember29 throughDecember31,2009.Her'requestwasapprovedonDecember8,2009,with Ms.GrossklegandMs.Cahillhavingsignedoffwillingtoundertakecoveragefor Ms.Brazeau'sdutiesthosedays.Ms.CahlllhadinitiallysignedMs.Brazeau'srequest formwithaqualifierIndicatingthatherwillingnesstocoverMs.Brazeauwassubjectto findingchildcareforDecember31,2009.AfterMs.Cahlll'srequestwasdeclinedon December3,2009,andpriortoMs.Brazeau'srequestbeingapprovedonDecember8, 2009,Ms.Cahillremovedthequalifier.AccordingtoMs.Cahill,Ms.Ripmeesterhad insistedshedoso.Inanyevent,Ms.Cahillknewshewasexpectedtoworkon December31,2009unless,asshetestifiedincross-examination,therewereany "unforeseencircumstances." 16.AfterMs.RipmeesterdeclinedMs.Cahill'sleaverequestforDecember31,2009, shesoughtanexplanation.Theexplanationgiven,accordingtoMs.Cahill,wasthe HealthUnit'soperationalrequirementscouldnotbemetwithonlyoneofher counterpartsinattendance.Ms.RlpmeesterfurtherexpressedtoMs.Cahillthatthere hadbeendiff]culfiesthepreviousyearwithonlyonesecretaryinattendance. 17.Incross-examination,counseltotheHealthUnitreferredtoadiscussion Ms.CahillinitiatedwithMs.Ripmeesteraboutherchildcareconcernsshortlyafter Ms.Cahill'srequesthadbeendeclined.Ms.Cahillinifiallydeniedanyrecollectionof suchadiscussion.ShethenconfirmedthatMs.Ripmeesterhadsuggestedthatshe contactteenagersinthecommunity.Ms.Cahillwasunabletorecallwhether Ms.RipmeesterhadcommunicatedtheHealthUnit'sviewthatitwasnotresponsiblefor findingchildcareforMs.Cahill. 7 18.Afterbeingdeniedtherequestedleave,Ms.Cahilltestifiedthatinaddlfionto contactingfamilymemberstocareforherchild,noneofwhomwereabletohelp,she telephonedafriend,whoprovidedherwiththreenamesofteenagersshehadsedas babysitters.NonewasavailableforthemorningofDecember31,2009.Ms,Cahill's husband,whowasawareofthechildcarepredicament,hadscheduledworkfor December30and31,2009.Incross-examinaUon,Ms.Cahillexpressedsheeitherdid notknowordidnotfeelcomfortableaskingthetwootherfamilies,withwhomher daughterattendedchildcareregularlytohelp.Shetestifiedshedidnotknowanyone elsetocalloranyoneelsetoask.Unabletoprovideanyspecificsastotiming, Ms.CahilltestifiedsheapproachedMs.Ripmeesterone.lasttimetoaskwhatshe shoulddo,AccordingtoMs.Cahill,Ms.Ripmeesterrespondedwithwordstotheeffect: "youhavetodowhatyouhavetodo." 19.AtworkonDecember30,2009,Ms.Cahillcompletedaformtorequestleave withoutpayforDecember31,2009.ShedateditDecember31,2009,Inthepartofthe formthatasksfordetails,Ms.Cahillwrote:"13.06unabletofindchildcareformy daughter,"Thereferenceistoanotherprovisionofthecollectiveagreement,whichis notatissue.Initially,Ms.Cahllldidnotrecallwhereshehadlefttheform.However, confrontedIncross-examinationwiththeanticipatedevidencethatsheleftitonher deskwithoutspeakingwithanyonebeforeleavingtheofficefortheday,Ms.Cahlll confirmedthatthiswasthecase.Ms.WaiterswasattheofficeonbothDecember30 and31,2009. 20.Shortlyafter8a.m.onDecember31,2009,Ms.Cahillcalledtheofficeandlefta messageonMs.Ripmeester'svoicemailinformingherthatsinceshewasunabletofind chlldcareshewouldnotbeatworkthatday.Ms.WaiterspickedupMs.Ripmeester's voicemail,andcontactedMs.Cahill.Ms.WaiterstoldMs.Cahillthatshehadexpected heratwork,andthatshewasawarethatherrequestforleavefromNovember16,2009 hadbeendeclined. 21.Inresponse,Ms.CahillexplainedshehadtoldMs.Ripmeester"beginningat Thanksgiving"thatshewouldnotbeabletoworkonDecember31,2009.She 8 reiteratedshecouldnotfindababysitter.Shewentontostatethatshedidnotknow anybabysittersoranyonetoask,thatherIn-lawswerenotavailable,andthather husbandwasworking.Ms.CahillaskedMs.Waitersifshewantedhertobringher daughterwithhertowork.Ms.CahillsaidtheHealthUnitcouldhavearrangedfor coverageforthemorningofDecember31,2009.Ms.CahillremindedMs.Waitersthat Ms.Ripmeesterhadtoldher,"shehadtodowhatshehadtodo",andforthisreason, shelefttheleaverequestonherdesk.AmongothercommentsmadetoMs.Waiters duringthistelephoneconversationwasthatthecoveragewasforonlythreeandahalf (3.5)hours. 22.Ms.WaitersreiteratedtoMs.Cahillthatshehadnopre-approvedleavetobe absentfromwork.Ms.WaitersfurtherexpressedshewasdisappointedMs.Cahlllhad notspokenwithheronDecember30,2009,whenshewasintheoffice.Ms.Waiters expressedtoMs.Cahillthatitwasinappropriateforhertosimplyleavetheformonher deskandcallinthemorningofherscheduleddaytosayshewouldnotbein. Ms.WaitersexpressedtoMs.Cahillthatmakingchlldcarearrangementswasher responsibilityandthatshehadweekstomakethem.Ms.WaitersalsoexpressedtoMs. CahillthatwhilesheappreciatedhersuggesUonsastocoverage,thatitwas management'sjobtodeterminetheHealthUnit'sneedsandcoverage.Ms.Waiterstold Ms.Cahtllthattheywouldmeetthefollowingweektodiscussthesituation,andthatshe wastoconsiderheroptionsandcallbackinfifteen(15)minutes. 23.Ms.Cahlllfeltthreatenedbytheconversationandcalledherhusband.She askedifhecoulddrivehomeorifhehadanyideawhocouldhelp.Mr.Cahillsuggested thathisbrother,havingflownhomefromCalgaryfortheChristmasHolidays,mightbe abletocarefortheirchild.Ms.Cahillcalledherbrother-in-law,whoagreedtoprovide childcarethatmorning.Ms.Cahillarrivedattheofficeandworkedtwo(2)outofher threeandahalf(3.5)hourscheduleddayonDecember31,2009. 24.Ms.Cahillclarifiedherbrother-in-lawhadarrivedintownChristmasDayandthat shehadnothadmuchadvancenoticethathewouldbereturningfortheChristmas Holidays.Ms.Cahillexplainedherfamilyhadseenherbrother-in-lawonlyoncesince 9 hehadarrived,andthatherchildhadmethimonlytwoorthreetimesinherlife.Inthe circumstances,tohaveherbrother-in-lawcareforherchildhadnotoccurredtoher, Ms.Cahillstated. 25.OnJanuary4,2010,Ms.Cahill,herunionrepresentative,Ms.Ripmeesterand Ms.Waitersmet.Aftersomediscussion,Ms.Cahlllremovedthedetailsshehad providedintherequestdatedDecember3t,2009andreferencedinparagraph19 aboveandreplacedthemwith:"absentwithoutcause."OnJanuary7,2010, Ms.WaitersIssuedadisciplinarylettertoMs.Cahill.Shedidnotgrievethediscipline imposed.OnJanuary8,20t0,Ms.Cahillfiledthegrievancenowbeforeme. TheUnion'sposition 26.Referringtoarticles15.01(d)and15.04(a)ofthecollectiveagreement,theUnion arguestheHealthUnitfailedtopayholidaypaytoMs.Cahillfortheafternoonof December31,2009.TheUnionsubmitsthatsinceMs.Cahlll"worked"two(2)outof thethreeandahalf(3.5)hoursofherscheduledshiftonDecember31,2009,shewas insubstantialcompliancewitharticle15.0!(d).AccordingtotheUnion,Ms.CahillIs thereforeentitledtoholidaypay.Alternatively,theUnionsubmitsthatifarticle15.04(a) requiresMs.CahilltohaveworkedallofDecember31,2009toqualifyforthreeanda half(3.5)hourspayfortheafternoonthatday,sheIsnonethelessentitledtoholidaypay becauseshehad"reasonablecause"forbeinglate.Thereasonablecausefor Ms.Cahill'sfailuretoattendworkfrom8:30a.m.to10:00a.m.wasshewasunableto findchildcare. 27.Inrespectofitsprimaryposition,theUniondrawsonthefundamentaltenetthat holidaypayisanearnedbenefit-partofthetotalwagepackagenegotiatedbythe partiestocollectiveagreements.Thepurposeofholidaypayprovisions,theUnion submits,istodeterabsenteeismbypreventing"holidaystretching."Holidaypayought nottobetakenaway,therefore,unlessthecollectiveagreementisveryclearandthe factsofaparticularcaserequireit(seeReGalcoFoodProductsLtd.andAlliedFood Workers,18L.A.C.(2d)220). lo 28.Insupportofitsposition,theUnionreliesonthe1973decisionofReBabcock andWilcoxCanadaLtd.andUnitedSteelWorkers,Local2859,5L.A.C.(2d)55 ("Babcocl#'),whichitsubmitsisanalogoustotheoneathand.Thelanguageofthe collectiveagreementdictatedthatanemployee"musthavebeenatworkduringhis prescribedworkinghours"onthedaysprecedingandfollowingtheholidaytobeentitled toholidaypay. 29.ThequalifyingdaysprovlsioninBabcockalsosetsoutexceptionstoits application,whichwereinapplicabletothefactsinthatcase.Theemployee's prescribedshiftonthedayatissuewas7:30a.m.to4:00p.m.OnthefactsinBabcock, theemployeefinishedallhisworkby1:30p.m.andwasfiredfromhavingworkedfrom 7:30a.m.to11:00p.m.thepreviousday(hehadstayedlateattherequestofthe employertocompletearushjob).Theemployeepunchedoutat3:30p.m.Insteadof standingaroundidleuntil4:00p.m.TheUniondirectedmetothecommentsof ArbitratorWeatherill,chairofthearbitrationboard: Whereemployeessubstantiallycomplywiththerequirementsforpaymentofsucha benefit(holidaypay),thentheyareentitledtoreceivethepaymentsthepayments,which theyhaveearned.Inourvlew,thecollectiveagreement,inItsprovlslonforholidaypay,shouldnotbereadsounreasonablytorestrictemployees'entlUementeInthisregard. 30.TheUnionsubmitsthatsubstantialcompliancemeansmorethanhalfashlft(see ReBelkinPackagingLtd.andUnitedPapetworlrars,Local433,15L.A.C.(2d)231). Sincetwo(2)outofthreeandonehalf(3.5)hoursIssubstantialcompliance,todeny Ms.Cahillthebenefitshehadearnedwouldbetointerpretarticle15.04(a)torestricther entitlementsunreasonably.Similarly,inReSlran-SteelDivision,WesteeI-RoscoLtd. andTeamstersUnion,Local847,28L.A.C.(2d)153("ReStran-Steet'),wherethe collectiveagreementlanguageprovidedforentitlementtoholidaypaywherethe employee"wasnotabsentfromhielastscheduledshiftbeforesuchholiday...,"the arbitrationboardappliedthedoctrineofsubstantialcomplianceandawardedthe employeeholidaypay. 31.Inthislattercase,theboardofarbitrationfoundtheemployee'searlydeparture 11 fromworkwithoutpermissionwasadisciplinarymatter.Inmakingthedetermination, theUnionpointstothearbitrationboard'scommentaryabouttheemployeehavingleft earlyonthedayprecedingtheholiday.Itcommentedtheemployee'sconductdidnot runcontrarytothepurposeofholidaypay.Byanalogy,theUnionarguesherethat Ms.Cahill'sfailuretoattendatworkmayhaveproperlybeenadlscipllnarymatter,butit shouldnotaffectherholidaypayentitlement. 32.ThefinalcaseuponwhichtheUnionreliesisReCancoilThermalCorp.and U.F.C.W.,Local175,168L.A.C.(4th)62("ReCancoit').Inthiscase,theemployeewas senthomeforInsubordinationlateinhisshift.Thedisciplineimposedwasnotgrieved. TheUniondirectedmetothearbitrator'scomments: [...]conslderingthegrlevorhadworkedaverysubstantialpartofhlsshiftonthequatifylng dayandtheInterpretivepresumptioninanemploye'sfavourinrespectofthlsearned benefit,thegrlevorhadreasonablecausenottobeatworkthe1sthouranda halfofthequalifyingday,whichtimeheservedasadlsclpllnarypenalty. 33.TheUnionsubmitsthatisnotacasewhereMs.Cahlllwasattemptingtoextend herholiday.ItsubmitsshehadreasonablecauseforbeinglateonDecember31,2009. Inrespectofthislattersubmission,theUnionsubmitsMs.Cahlllhadbeenproactivein raisingtheanticipatedchildcareissuewithheremployerandhadexhaustedallofher options,giventheunavailabilityofherregularchildcareprovidersonDecember31, 2009.Ultimately,facedwithasupervisorwhohadtoldher"todowhatshehadtodo," Ms.Cahillsubmittedarequestforleavewithoutpayandcalledintoworktolether employerknowshewasunabletoattendbecauseshehadbeenunabletofind childcare.Ultimately,Ms.Cahlllwasabletoarrangeforherbrother-in-law,whoshe hadnotpreviouslyconsidered,toprovidechitdcare. 34.TheUniondoesnotdlsputetheHealthUnit'sconsiderationofoperational requirementsleadingtoitsdecisionthattwoofthethreesecretariesontheclericalteam wouldworkthemorningofDecember31,2009wasbonafide.ItsviewIsthattheUnion didnotgivesufficientconsiderationtoMs.Cahill'ssuggestionforareplacement, particularlyinlightofitsawarenessofMs.Cahill'schildcarepredicament.Taken together,theUnionsubmitsthatMs.Cahilldidhavereasonablecausefornotattending 12 atworkuntil10a.m..onDecember31,2009. TheHealthUnit'sposition 35.TheHealthUnitsubmitsthattheUnion'sargumentsfallonbothcounts.Thefirst isthatsinceMs.CahillwasatworkonDecember31,2009formorethanhalftheday, sheisinsubstantialcompliancewitharticle15.01(d)ofthecollectiveagreementand thereforeentitledtothreeandahalf(3.5)hoursofholidaypay.ThesecondisthatMs. Cahillhadreasonablecauseforfailingtwoworkallofherregularlyscheduleddayon December31,2009. 36,TheHealthUnitpointsoutthehistoryoftheclauseatIssue.Itdirectsmetoa decisionbetweenthepredecessorpartiestothecurrentcollectiveagreement, AssociationofAlliedProfessionalsandtheRenfrewCountyandDistrictHealthUnit, May27,1996(Kates)(unreported),andtopreviouscollectiveagreementsbetweenthe partieswheretheapplicablelanguagewasamended,TheHealthUnitdidsoto reinforcethatthepartiestothiscollectiveagreementhaveturnedtheirmindstothe specificlanguageofthearticlesatIssue. 37.InresponsetotheUnion'sargumentonsubstantialcompliance,theHealthUnit arguestheconcepthasnoapplicationwherethelanguageofthecollectiveagreement isclear.Insupportofitsposition,theHealthUnitreliesonArbitratorBrunner's commentsreferencedintheReStran-Steelcase.Inthatcase,theArbitrator distinguishesbetweenwordinginqualifyingdayprovisionsthatIs"clearandvery precise"andlooserwordingsuchas"atwork."Onlyonsuch"looserwording"doesthis ArbitratorcommentthatitmaybeappropriatetoImportthedoctrineofsubstantial compliancefromcontractlaw.TheHealthUnitsubmitsthattoimportthedoctrine wherelanguageisclearistodetractfromtheintentionofthepartiesasexpressed throughtheirnegotiatedcontract. 38.Inaddition,IncommentingontheReStran-Steelcase,theHealthUnitargues thatevenifoneImportsthedoctrineofsubstantialcompliance,thereareexceptionsto ].3 itsapplication.TheHealthUnitpointstoArbitratorWeatherill'acommentscitedinRe Start-SteelreferencingtheReBabcockcase.Inapplyingthedoctrineonthefactsset outinparagraph33above,theArbitratorwrote:"Ofcourse,ifanemployeewereto leavewithoutpermissionwhenworkwasstillexpectedofhimdifferentconsiderations wouldarise..."TheHealthUnitmaintainsthisexceptionwouldoperateonthefactsof thiscaseasnoleavewasgrantedtoMs.Cahill,anditisundisputedthattherewaswork tobedonebyherduringtheenUretyofherscheduledshiftonDecember31,2009. 39.ThefinalpointtheHealthUnitmakeswithrespecttotheReStran-Steelcase relatestothearbitrationboard'sapparentrelianceonitsdeterminationthatthe employee'sconductinleavingearlydidnotruncountertothepurposeofthequalifying daysprovision,namelytopreventemployeesfromabsentingthemselvesthedaybefore theholiday.TheHealthUnitarguesthatInnotshowingupforworkonDecember31, 2009,Ms.Cahillwaseffectivelyattemptingtostretchherholiday.Thisisoneadditional reason,referencedintheReGalcocase,andcitedInReCancoflcase,aswellasrelied onbyArbitratorFrumkininComdyeInc.andTeamstersUnion,Local931(Re)case, 19C.L.A.S.29,todenyanemployee'sholidaypayentitlement. 40.Havingarticulatedwhythe"substantialcompliance"argumentadvancedbythe Unionshouldfall,theHealthUnitsubmitsthejurisprudencerelatingtoworkplace parties'obligationsvts-l-vischildcareconsiderations,astheyImpactonemployers, doesnotsupporttheUnion'sposition.TheHealthUnitarguesMs.Cahilldidnothave reasonablecauseforherfailuretoattendatworkbetween8:30a.m.and10:00a.m.on December31,2009.Assuch,theHealthUnitarguessheisthereforeprecludedfrom anyentitlementtoholidaypaypursuanttoarticle15.04(a)ofthecollectiveagreement. 41.TheHealthUnitarguesthefundamentaloperatingpremisefromwhichto approachtheassessmentof"reasonablecause"isthatanemployeeisexpectedto makeallreasonableeffortstosecurethechildcarenecessarytoensureregular attendanceatwork.Whenthereisabreakdowninsuchchildcarearrangements,the HealthUnitsubmitsemployersareentitledtoexpectthattheemployeewillcorrectthe breakdownonaprioritybasisandwithminimumdelay.Moreover,theHealthUnit 14 submitsthatwhiletheemployeesmaypreferfamilymemberstoprovidechildcare,the obligationtoone'semployermayrequiretheemployeetomakealessthanIdeal alternativearrangementonatemporarybasis(seeChristieBrown&Co.andB.C.T., Loc.426,10L.A.C.(4I")142("ChrisUeBrown").Here,theHeathUnitargues Ms.Cahill'seffortswereneither"comprehensive"nor"persistent",astheyshouldhave been.TheselatterwordsinformedArbitratorBird'sassessmentofreasonableness,as itpertainedtotheemployee'seffortsinseekingasubstitutecaregiverintheCanada PostCorp.andC.U.P.W.(Feihle)(Re),28C.L.A.S160case("ReFaihle"). 42.TheHealthUnitreliesonthefollowingadditionalcaseswhereadetermination wasmadeastowhere"reasonableness"liesinvariousfactualscenariosinvolving childcareinthecontextoftheinterpretationofdifferentclausesoftheapplicable collectiveagreements:LouisBrieHomeandHospitalandH.E.U.(Re)56C.L.A.S403; CanadaPostCorp.v.CanadianUnionofPostalWorkers(BaileyGrievance,CUPW 744-00-0027),[2004]C.L.A.D.No.242.TheHealthUnitalsoprovidesonecasefrom thehumanrightscontext,namelyAlberta(SolicitorGeneral)andA.U.P.E(Jungwlrth) (Re),101C.L.A.S.8. 43.TheHealthUnitconcedesthatinachildcareemergencythetestforreasonable causewouldbemet.Thefactsinthiscase,however,makeclear,intheHealthUnit's submission,thatMs.Cahill'sabsencefromworkat8:30a.m.onDecember31,2009 wasnochildcareemergency.TheHealthUnitsubmitsathoroughreviewofMs.Cahill's evidencerevealsanattitudethatledtoalessthanseriousefforttoobtainchlldcareso shecouldattendworkonDecember31,2009. 44.Insupportofitsposition,theHealthUnitpointsoutMs.Cahillremainedsteadfast inherviewthroughouttheproceedingthattheHealthUnitshouldhaveapprovedher leaverequest.ItarguestheUnion'sfocusonthedebateaboutthemeritsof management'sbonafidedecisioninmakingthedeterminationtodeclineherrequest translatedtoMs.Cahill's"perfunctoryefforts"toobtainchildcareforDecember31, 2009. 15 45.TheHealthUnitemphasizesthatMs.CahlllhadbetweenDecember3,2009 (whensheknewherrequestforleavewasdeclined)tothemorningofDecember31, 2009tofindapersontocareforherchildforthreeandahalf(3.5)hours.Accordingto theevidence,Ms.CahillhadturnedhermindtotheissueasearlyasOctober14,2009, whenshefirstwrotetoMs.Ripmeester.Beyondfamily,Ms.Cahill;seffortstoobtain childcareincludedonetelephonecalltoafriend,whogaveherthenameofthree teenagers.SucheffortsfallshortofreasonableeffortselaborateduponintheChristie Browncaseandappliedinthejurisprudence,theHealthUnitargues. 46.Initssubmissions,theHealthUnitdirectedmetoaportionofMs.Cahill's testimonythatitconsidersmostrevealing,namelyhertestimonypertainingto Ms.Brazeau'sleaverequest.Oncross-examination,Ms,Cahillinitiallytestifiedshe wasunawareherrequesthadbeendeclinedwhenshe"wasaskedtoremove"the referenceshehadmadeonMs.Brazeau'sbeingsubjecttoher1ndingchildcarefor December31,2009.Uponfurtherquestioning,however,Ms.Cahillacknowledgedshe knewsheherrequesthadbeendeclinedwhensheremovedthestipulation.Ultimately, Ms.CahIIIagreedthatshewaswellawareshewasexpectedtobeatworkon December31,2009.Ms.Cahill'stestimonyonthispoint,accordingtotheHealthUnit, demonstratesthatshecontinuedtobelievetheriskassociatedwithherinabilitytofind childcaresomehowrestedwiththeHealthUnit,asshehadInformedtheHealthUnitshe hadnotsecuredchildcarearrangements. 47.Inthiscontext,theHeathUnitreiteratesthat,weekslater,Ms.Cahillleftworkon December30,2009,leavingarequestforleaveIndicatingherInabilitytofindchildcare forthefollowingday.AccordingtotheHealthUnit,Ms.Cahill'sconductdemonstrateda deliberatestrategytoavoidspeakingwithanyoneinanticipationofherIntended absencefromwork.Specifically,theHealthUnithighlightscommentsmadeby Ms.CahillwhenMs.Waftersconfrontedherthenextmorning.Inthatconversation,the HealthUnttreferstotheunchallengedevidencethatMs.CahIIIstatedshehadInformed hersupervisorbeginningatThanksgivingthatshecouldnotworkonDecember31, 2009.ApartfromdemonstratingMs.Cahlll'sIntentionto"stretch"herholiday,the HealthUnitsubmitsthecommentaryspeakstoMs.Cahill'slackofIntenttoembarkona ]6 seriousefforttofindchildcare. 48.OthercommentsattributedtoMs.CahlllduringherconversationwithMs.Waiters onthemorningofDecember31,2009areequallyrevealing,accordingtotheHealth Unit.IthighlightsMs.Cahilrsreferencingthefacttheshiftwasonlythreeandahalf (3.5)hours,aswellashercommentaboutnotknowinganybabysitters.TheHealth UnitarguesthesecommentsprovideInsightintoMs.Cahlll'sattitude,whichtranslated intoalackofseriousefforttofindchildcare,despitetheadvancenoticeshehadto makechildcarearrangements. Decision 49.Thepartiesframedtheissuefordeterminationasfollows:didMs.Cahlllqualify fortimeoffwithpayforthefinalhalfofherseven(7)hourshiftonDecember31,2009, pursuanttoarticle15.01(d)?Inthatregard,thepartiestookopposingpositions concerningtheholidayqualifierstheysubmittedappliedtodetermineanemployee's entitlementpursuanttoarticle15.04(a). 50.Formulatedassuch,iftherequirementsestablishedbythequalifyingdays provisionaremet,Ms.Cahillisentitledtothreeandahalf(3.5)hoursholidaypay: 15.04(a) F.T./P.T. Inorderforafull-timeorpart-timeemployeetoqualifyforholiday pay,theemployeemusthaveworkedhls/herregularlyscheduled workingdayImmediatelyprecedingandfollowingtheholiday,unless helshehasareasonablecauseforfailingtoworkallsuchdays. 51.Article15.04(a)isstraightforward.Iftherewasambiguityinthewords"worked herregularlyscheduledworkingday,"aswasarguedintheReBelkincase,the subordinateclauseInthesentence:"unlessshehasreasonablecauseforfailureto workallsuchdays"(myemphasis)makescleartheparties'intent.Thelanguage providesforanentitlementtoholidaypaywhentheemployeeworksalldayontheday precedingandalldayonthedayfollowingtheholiday("qualifyingdays"),unlessthe employeehasreasonablecausefornotadheringtotherequirements.Iftheemployee doesnotmeetthequalifyingdayrequirements,anevaluationistobeundertakenofthe ]7 circumstancessurroundingtheemployee'sfailuretodoso.Thatevaluationisona reasonablecausestandard. 52.ThepartiesagreeMs.Cahilldidnotworkallofherregularlyscheduledday precedingNewYear'sDay.Sheworkedtwo(2)hoursoutofherthreeandahalf(3.5) hourregularlyscheduledworkingday.TheissueisthereforewhetherMs.Cahillhad reasonablecauseforfailingtoworkallofherthreeandahalf(3.5)hourday.If Ms.Cahillhadreasonablecausefornotdoingso,sheisentitledtoholidaypayforthe afternoonofDecember31,2009.Otherwise,sheisnot, 53.Despitetheclearlanguageofarticle15.04(a),theUnionurgesmetoapplythe equitabledoctrineofsubstantialcompliance,Importedfromcontractlaw,andexamined and/orappliedbyarbitratorsinthecasessubmittedtome.Ihavereadthecases thoroughly.Arbitratorshavemadedeterminationsastowhetheremployeeswere entitledtoholidaypayapplyinglanguagewithvaryingdegreesofclarityonthe continuum-fromambiguousor"loose"languagetoclearqualifyingprovisionsfor holidaypayentitlement.Considerationsalsoincluded:amountoftimeemployees workedonthequalifyingday,theperiodduringthedaytheemployeedidnotwork,and thevaryingreasonsemployeesdidnotworkonqualifyingdays. 54.Inassessingthefactualcircumstancesbeforetheminlightofthedoctrineof substantialcompliance,arbitratorshaveconsideredtherationaleforqualifyingday provisionsforentitlementtoholidaypay,namelytopreventabsenteeismatatimewhen employersareparticularlyvulnerable.ArbitratorAdell,inReT.C.F.ofCsnadsLtd.and TextileWorkers'UnionofAmerica,Localt332(1972),1L.A.X.(2d)382,citedinRe Cancoil,writesqualifyingdayrequirementsare"topreventemployeesfromvoluntarily turningaone-dayholidayintoalongerperiodofabsence." 55.Eachcaseisdistinct,andthefactualunderpinningsofthecasebeforemeare significantlydifferentthanthoseinthecasesthepartieshavesubmitted.InMs.Cahill's circumstance,thereisnofactualbasistowarranttheapplicationofthedoctrineof ]8 substantialcompliance.Asreferencedabove,thedoctrineofsubstantialcomplianceis anequitabledoctrineImportedfromcontractlaw.Thedoctrineprovidesthatifagood faithattemptismadebypartiestoacontracttoperformtherequirementsofthe contract,evenifthosetermsarenotpreciselymet,thecontractwillbeconsideredas havingbeencompleted. 56.Inconsideringwhethertoapplythisdoctrineinthelabourrelationscontextof clearlywordedqualifyingdayprovisions,theemployeeatissue,ataminimum,must makeagoodfaithefforttofulfilltheirobligationtoattendatworkonthequalifyingdays. Simplyput,theemployeeintendstomeettherequirementsofthecontractbyplanning togotoworkatthestartofthedayandattendingatworkwiththeviewtocompleting theday.Put.anotherway,giventheopportunity,theemployeewouldmeetthe requirementsofthequalifyingdayprovisions.Onthefactshere,giventheopportunity, Ms.Cahlll'swouldnothaveworkedatallonDecember31,2009.Herintentwasto "stretchherholiday."Ms.CahillonlyattendedworkonDecember31,2009afterthe HealthUnitcontactedherthemorningofDecember31,2009,andremindedherofthe expectationshebeatwork(ofwhichshewaswellaware).Inthesecircumstances Ms.CahillisprecludedfromaccessingtheequitabledoctrinetheUnionwouldhaveme Invoke. 57.IthereforeturntoassesswhetherMs.Cahillhadreasonablecauseforfailingto workallofherthreeandahalf(3.5)hourdayonDecember3!,2009.Herjustification isthatshewasunabletofindchlldcare.Thisjustificationmustbeassessedconsidering theimplicitexpectationwithinacontractofemploymentarticulatedbyArbitratorPicher intheChristieBrowncase: ...theparent-employeewillmakeallreasonableeffortstosecurethechildcareservices necessarytoensurehisorherregularattendanceatwork,Includingsuchback-up arrangementsasmaybenecessarywhetherunforeseencircumstancesarise,inother words,whileanemployeemayfairlyexpecttobeexcusedforashortperiodoftime becauseofabreakdownInchildcarearrangements,theemployerisequallyentlUedto expectthatsuchabreakdownwillbecorrectedonaprioritybasis,withaminimumof delay. J ]9 58.TheArbitratorgoesontoarticulatethatthisobligationtoone'semployerdoes notprecludeanemployee'srecoursetoalessthanIdealalternafiveonatemporary basis.IshareArbitratorPicher'sviewoftheobligationsofparent-employeestomake arrangementsfortheirchildren'scareinthecontemporaryworkplace. 59.Theevidencebeforemeisundisputed:Ms.Cahillknewherchlldcare arrangementshadbrokendown.Specifically,priortoputtinginarequestforleavefor December31,2009,sheknewshewouldnothaveaccesstoherregularchildcare. Ms.CahillputinherleaverequestonNovember16,2009.Inotethelanguageusedby Ms.CahiIIInheremaiItoMs.Rlpmeesterpriortoputtinginherleaverequests.She writesabouther"need"tohaveChristmasEvedayoff,andspeakstohersuggestion aboutwhattheHealthUnitmightdoif"toomanyneedoff"overtheChristmasHolidays. Ultimately,"toomanyneededoff'onDecember31,2009. 60.Ms.Cahill'sdecisiontoputoffhersearchforchildcareuntilherrequestforleave wasdeclinedonDecember3,2009,wasreasonable.Untilthen,itwasunclearwhether Ms.Cahillwouldberequiredtoattendatwork.However,onanobjectivebasis,itis difficulttoconceivethatchildcareforDecember31,2009couldnotbesecuredby Ms.Cahillwithreasonableefforts"tocorrectthebreakdown,onaprioritybasis,witha minimumofdelay"whensheknewshehadtodosoonDecember3,2009. 61.TheevidenceonMs.CahiIl'seffortstofindchildcarebetweenDecember3and themorningofDecember31,2009isundisputed.Beyondaskingfamilymembers, Ms.Cahillcontactedonefriend,whoprovidedthreenamesofteenagers(noneofwhom wereavailabletoworkthemorningofDecember31,2009).Ms.Cahilldidnotconsider askingherbrother-in-law,whohadbeenintownsinceChristmasandwhoultimately providedchlldcareonDecember31,2009,inthecircumstancesdescribedabove. BetweenChristmasandDecember31,2009,Ms.Cahillmadenoeffortstofind chlldcarebeyondaskingaslster-lnlaw.Ms.Cahllltestifiedthatshedidnotknow anyoneelsetocallortoasktoprovidechildcare. 2O 62.TheonlyconclusiontodrawfromthlsevidenceisthatMs.Cahillfailedto appreciatewhatherobligationtomakereasonableeffortsentailed.Itisnotreasonable foraparent-employeewhoisexpectedtocorrectabreakdowninchildcareonapdority basis,withaminimumofdelay,tofailtoconsiderherbrother-inlawwhohadbeenin townforaweek.ItisunreasonableforMs.Cahill(onherownevidence)tohave undertakennoeffortsbetweenChristmasandDecember31,2009tofindchildcare (otherthanconnectingwithasister-in-law)whensheknewshewasexpectedtoreport towork,ItwasunreasonableforMs.Cahilltoallowherselftoremaininapositionof knowingno-one(beyondfamily)toassistwithchildcareonatemporarybasiswhenshe hadmorethanthreeandahalfweekstocorrecttheproblem,Thesefactspointtoa mindsetthatresultedinthefailuretomakethereasonableeffortstheHealthUnitwas entitledtoexpect. 63.AdditionalevidenceadducedatthehearingreinforcesMs.Cahlll'sapparent inertiaontheIssue.ShechallengedtheHealthUnit'sdecisiontorequiretwo(2)clerical teammemberstobeatworkonDecember31,2009.Shethoughtone(1)would suffice.TheUnionsubmittedtheHealthUnitdidnotconsiderseriouslyenough Ms.Cahill'ssuggestionforasecretarypreviouslyemployedonatemporarybasisin otherbranchofficestocoverhershift, 64.IamnotconcernedwiththeHealthUnit'sdecisiontodenyMs.Cahllrsrequest forDecember31,2009,becauseItIsundisputedthatthedecisionwasbonafidebased operationalrequirements.Ms.CahilrsapparentdisagreementwiththeHealthUnit's decision,however,affectedherjudgmentthatitwasnotImportantforhertoattendat workonDecember31,2009.Ms.Cahill'scommentabouthershiftonlybeingthreeand ahalf(3.5)hoursunderscoresthispoint.Moreover,Ms.Cahill'sarticulatedviewabout theHealthUnitbeinginapositiontoarrangeforcoveragegiventheadvancenoticeft hadofMs,Cahilrschildcarepredicamentdemonstratesherfailuretoappreciateher obligationtocorrectthebreakdowninherchildcarearrangementsonaprioritybasis, withaminimumdelay. 21 65.ConsistentwithMs.Cahill'elackofcommitmenttosecuringchildcare,shefilled inaleaverequestformwhileatworkonDecember30,2009fortheHealthUnitto discoverthefollowingday.Ms.Cahilllefttheofficewithnointentionofattemptingto securechildcareforthefollowingday.Whenaskedwhensheknewshewasnotgoing tohavechildcareforDecember31,2009,Ms.Cahillwasunabletoanswerthat question.ConsideringMs.Cahill'sevasiveanswersaboutspecificsontimingrelatedto thefeweffortsshemade,aswellasconversationsshehadwithhersupervisorduring thetimeperiodatissueandMs.Cahill'scommentstoMs.WaitersonDecember31, 2009,Iampersuaded,basedonthetotalityoftheevidence,thatMs.Cahillmadethe decisionwellInadvanceofDecember31,2009thatshewouldnottobeattendingwork thatday. 66.Incross-examination,Ms.Cahillconfirmedsheunderstoodthefirstweekof December2009thatshewasexpectedtobeatworkonDecember31,2009unless "unforeseencircumstances"arose.Therewasnothingunforeseenaboutthe circumstancesinwhichMs.Cahill'sfoundherselfonDecember31,2009.Ms.Cahill'e failuretoprioritizecorrectingthebreakdowninherchildcarearrangementstranslated directlytohernothavingreasonablecauseforworkinglessthanallofherregularly scheduledworkingdayonDecember31,2009. 67.Forallthesereasons,thegrievanceIsdismissed. DatedatTORONTOonNovember14,2011. ChristineSchmidt,SoleArbitrator