The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBurgess 02-04-23INTHEMATTEROFANARBITRATION oOl-22002 0PSb''Bu&,SvI#j BETWEEN:THESCARBOROUGHHOSPITAL AND ONTARIOPUBLICSERVICEEMPLOYEES UNION,LOCAL575 ANDINTHEMATTEROFTHEGRIEVANCEOFB.BURGESS OPSEUFILENO.:01-575-080 SOLEARBITRATOR:MAUREENK.SALTMAN APPEARANCES FORTHEHOSPITAL: FORTHEUNION: CAROLEE.C.HOGLUND MARYANNEKUNTZ AWARD TheUnionclaimsthattheHospitalviolatedthecollective agreementinfailingtoappointtheGrievor,BrendaBurgess,tothepositionof full-timeCoreLaboratoryTechnologist,whichsheobtainedthroughajobposting, effectiveJuly17,2000,whichisthedateonwhichtheothersuccessful applicantsassumedtheposition.Therewasnodisputethatatthetimeshewas advisedthatshehadbeenselectedasasuccessfulapplicantonthejobposting, theGrievorwasabsentonpregnancyleave. Theprovisionsofthecollectiveagreementwhichbearupona resolutionofthismatterarethefollowing: ARTICLE3-NODISCRIMINATIONORHARASSMENT 3.02Itisagreedthattherewillnodiscriminationbyeitherpartyorbyanyof theemployeescoveredbythisAgreementonthebasisofrace,creed,colour,nationalorigin,sex,maritalstatus,age,religiousaffiliation,sexualorientationoranyotherfactorwhichisnot pertinenttotheemploymentrelationship. ARTICLE13-JOBPOSTING,PROMOTIONANDTRANSFER 13.07Inmattersofpromotionandstafftransfer,asuccessfulbargainingunit applicantshallbeallowedatrialperiodofuptosixty(60)days(450hoursforemployeeswhoseregularhoursofworkareother thanthestandardworkday)workedduringwhichtheHospitalwill determineiftheemployeecansatisfactorilyperformthejob.Within thisperiodtheemployeemayvoluntarilyreturn,orbereturnedby theHospital,tothepositionformerlyoccupied,withoutlossof seniority.Shouldtheemployeereturnorbereturnedtohisformer job,thefillingofsubsequentvacancieswillbereversed. ARTICLE14-LEAVESOFABSENCE 14.05(a)PregnancyLeave (i) Pregnancyleavewillbegrantedinaccordancewith theprovisionsoftheEmploymentStandardsAct, exceptwhereamendedinthisagreement. Aswell,thefollowingprovisionsoftheEmploymentStandardsAct arerelevanttothismatter: PARTXIV LEAVESOFABSENCE PREGNANCYLEAVE GENERALPROVISIONSCONCERNINGLEAVES 52.(1)Lengthofemployment.-Theperiodofanemployee'sleave underthisPartshallbeincludedincalculatinganyofthefollowingforthe purposeofdetermininghisorherrightsunderanemploymentcontract: 1.Thelengthofhisorherof[sic]employment,whetherornotitis activeemployment. 2.Thelengthoftheemployee'sservicewhetherornotthat serviceisactive. 3.Theemployee'sseniority. 3 (2)Exception.-Theperiodofanemployee'sleaveshallnotbe includedindeterminingwhetherheorshehascompletedaprobationary periodunderanemploymentcontract. 53.(1)Reinstatement.-Uponconclusionofanemployee'sleaveunder thisPart,theemployershallreinstatetheemployeetothepositionthe employeemostrecentlyheldwiththeemployer,ifitstillexists,ortoa comparableposition,ifitdoesnot. (2)Exception.-Subsection(1)doesnotapplyiftheemploymentof theemployeeendedsolelyforreasonsunrelatedtotheleave. (3)Wagerate.-Theemployershallpayareinstatedemployeeata ratethatisequaltothegreaterof, (a)theratethattheemployeemostrecentlyearnedwiththe employer;and (b)theratethattheemployeewouldhavebeenearninghadheor sheworkedthroughouttheleave. Thefactswereagreedto,forthemostpart,betweenthepartiesas follows: 1.Ms.BurgessisaMedicalLaboratoryTechnologistwhohasbeen employedwiththeHospital(GeneralDivision)sinceOctober7,1996. 2.PriortothecommencementofamaternityleaveonJune19,2000,she wasemployedinapart-timetechnologistposition. 3.UponreturningfromherleaveonDecember18,2000,sheassumed dutiesandcurrentlyremainsafull-timeCoreLaboratoryTechnologist. 4.Shehadsuccessfullycompetedforoneoffourfull-timeCore LaboratorypositionspostedinJune2000. 5.ThepositionswerepostedonJune15,2000withadeadlineofJune 22,2000.Ms.Burgesswasoneoftheapplicantsforaposition. 6.June16,2000wasthelastworkdayforMs.Burgesspriortothe commencementofthematernityleavethatbeganonJune19,2000. 4 7.Mr.DavidWu,ManagerofHaematology,informedMs.Burgessby telephoneinearlyJulythatshewasoneoffoursuccessfulcandidates forapositionintheCoreLaboratory. 8.TheotherincumbentsassumedtheirnewpositionseffectiveJuly17, 2000. 9.Ms.BurgesswasexpectedtobeonmaternityleaveuntilJanuary2, 2001.ShechosetoreturntoworkDecember18,2000inordertobe paidfortheDecember2000andJanuary1,2001statutoryholidaysas afull-timeemployee. 10.Shewasonmaternityleavefor26weeks.Duringthattimeshe receivedaSUBtopupfor25weeksperArticle1405ofthecollective agreement. 11.DuringthetimeMs.Burgesswasonmaternityleaveshenotifiedthe Hospitalthatshewasexploringthepossibilityofjobsharingthefull timeposition.Individualsinjobsharepositionsareclassifiedaspart time. 12.Ms.Burgesswasadvisedverballythattheeffectivedateofher appointmenttothefull-timeposition(shouldshereturntoworkintothe full-timeposition)wouldbeherstartdateintheposition. 13.OnMs.Burgess'returntoworkonDecember18,2000,sherequested aletterfromtheHospital'sHumanResourcesDepartmentregarding hertransfertothefull-timeposition.ByletterdatedDecember18, 2000,shewasadvisedthattheeffectivedateofhertransfertothefull timepositionwasDecember18,2000. 14.Asaresultofassumingthefull-timeposition,Ms.Burgess' Seniority/ServicedateandReview/Anniversarydateswereadjustedto reflectpriorpart-timeservice. 15.ItwillbetheHospital'spositionthatpastpracticeinsimilar circumstanceshasbeenthattheeffectivedateofatransferofan employeetoanewpositioniswhentheemployeestartsinthe position. 16.Itisnotdisputedthatthereisnospecificwrittenpolicyexpressly settingouttheprocessgoverningthepracticereferredtoin15above. 17.TheHospitaldoeshaveaPolicywithrespecttoPregnancyLeavethat wasmostrecentlyrevisedinApril1999. 5 Apartfromtheseagreedfacts,theevidenceindicatesthat,although theGrievorinquiredastothepossibilityofjobsharingthefull-timeposition,she neveradvisedtheHospitalthatitwasherintentiontoenterintoajob-sharing arrangementoraskedtheHospitaltolookintojob-sharingopportunitiesonher behalf.Aswell,althoughbenefitcoverageisavailabletofull-timeemployees (butnottopart-timeemployees),theGrievordidnotattempttoactivatebenefit coveragewhileonpregnancyleave.Itwouldappear,however,thatsheis coveredunderherhusband'splan. WhentheGrievorinquiredastotheaccrualofvacationleave,she wasadvisedthatshewouldbegintoaccruevacationentitlementeffectivethe dateoftransfertothefull-timeposition,whichwouldtakeplaceuponherreturn toworkfrompregnancyleave.Inthisregard,HumanResourcesConsultant, KirstenLeach,testifiedthattheeffectivedateoftransfertoanewpositionisthe dateonwhichtheemployeestartsworkintheposition,whichapplieswherean employeeisinattendanceatwork,butunabletostartworkintheposition immediately(perhapsbecausethepositionisnotimmediatelyavailable)and whereanemployeeisabsentonleave.Moreover,althoughMs.Leachtestified that,whereanemployeeisabsentonpregnancyleave,thepracticehasbeen thattheeffectivedateoftransfertoafull-timepositionisthedateonwhichthe employeestartsworkintheposition,thePresidentoftheLocalUnion,Patricia Collyer,couldnotrecallanotherinstanceinwhichoneofthesuccessful applicantsonajobpostingwasonpregnancyleaveatthetimetheother 6 successfulapplicantsassumedtheirpostedpositions.Infact,Ms.Collyercould notrecallanyotherinstanceinwhichanemployeehadbeenawardedaposition pursuanttoajobpostingwhiletheemployeewasonanytypeofleave. However,Ms.Leachmadereferencetotwopart-timeemployees,oneinthe CUPEbargainingunitandtheotherintheONAbargainingunit,whohadbeen offeredfull-timepositionswhileonpregnancyleave.Althoughbothemployees acceptedtheofferoffull-timeemployment,justbeforetheCUPEmemberwas scheduledtoreturntowork,sheadvisedtheHospitalthatshewouldbeunable toassumethepositionduetodifficultieswithherchildcarearrangements.Asto theotheremployee,Ms.Leachtestifiedthatshewillassumeherfull-timeposition uponherreturntoworkfrompregnancyleave.Finally,Ms.Leachacknowledged incross-examinationthat,hadtheGrievernotbeenonpregnancyleave,itis likelythatshewouldhavestartedinthefull-timepositiononthesamedate(July 17,2000)astheothersuccessfulapplicants. TheevidenceindicatesthatevenaslateasDecember27,2000, theGrievor'snameappearedonthepart-timesenioritylist,acopyofwhichwas senttheUnion.However,Ms.Collyerclaimedthattherewereerrorsonthelist, amongthem,theinclusionoftheGrievor'sname.Althoughtheevidence indicatesthatsucherrorsaregenerallydrawntotheHospital'sattentionat Labour-ManagementCommitteemeetings,itisunclearwhethertheinclusionof theGrievor'snameonthepart-timesenioritylistwaseverdrawntotheHospital's attention.Nevertheless,itwouldappearthattheGrievor'sseniorityrelativeto 7 NancyKriparos,anotherofthesuccessfulapplicants,wouldnothavechanged evenifshehadbeenappointedtothefull-timepositionasofthedateoftheother successfulapplicants.Finally,althoughthecollectiveagreementprovidesfora 60-workingdaytrialperiodupontheassumptionofanewposition,Ms.Collyer testifiedthattheGrievorworkedinthesamepositiononapart-timebasisasshe obtainedonafull-timebasisasaresultofthejobposting.Ms.Collyerfurther testifiedthatwhenemployeestransferfrompart-timetofull-timestatus(orvice versa)inessentiallythesameposition,theygenerallydonotexperience performance-relatedproblemsduringthetrialperiod.Forherpart,Ms.Leachdid notdisputethattherewasnochangeinthenatureoftheworkwhichtheGdevor performeduponattainmentofthefull-timeposition. SubmissionsfortheUnion TheUnionsubmittedthattheevidencesupportstheconclusion that,butfortheGrievor'spregnancyleave,shewouldhavestartedinthefull-time positiononthesamedateastheothersuccessfulapplicants,i.e.,July17,2000. TheUnionfurthersubmittedthat(1)theEmploymentStandardsActisintended topreventwomenwhoaccessthepregnancy(andparental)leaveprovisionsof theActfrombeingprejudicedbyexperiencinglossesduringtheirperiodof absence;and(2)inthiscase,theGrievorsufferedthelossofseniorityandother benefitsasaresultoftheHospital'sfailuretoappointhertothefull-timeposition onthesamedateastheothersuccessfulapplicants.TheUnionfurther 8 submittedthat,althoughitisfortuitousthattheGrievor'srelativesenioritywould nothavechangedevenifshehadbeenappointedtothefull-timepositionasof July17,2000,assoonastheHospitalfailedtoappointtheGrievorasofthat date,shebegantolosegroundinrelationtotheothersuccessfulapplicants.In addition,shewasdeniedaccesstoservice-basedbenefits,suchasvacation leave,andpaidholidays,towhichonlyfull-timeemployeesareentitled. ItwasfurthersubmittedthatArticle13.07,whichprovidesfora60 workingdaytrialperiodupontheattainmentofafull-timeposition,cannotbe reliedupontocircumventtheprovisionsoftheEmploymentStandardsAct. Accordingly,theGrievoroughttohavebeenaffordedtheseniorityaccumulation andotherbenefitsprovidedtofull-timeemployeesonpregnancyleave,asthere wouldhavebeennodifficultyreconcilinganybenefitsprovidedintheeventthat theGrievorreturnedtoherformerposition.Finally,itwassubmittedthatthetrial periodisforthebenefitoftheemployeeand,astheGrievorhadbeendoing essentiallythesamejobonapart-timebasisassheobtainedonafull-timebasis, asapracticalmatter,itisunlikelythatshewouldhavebeenrequiredtoreturnto herformerposition.Insummary,theUnionsubmittedthattheHospitaloughtto haveappointedtheGrievortoherfull-timepositioneffectiveJuly17,2000. SubmissionsfortheHospital TheHospitalsubmittedthattheeffectivedateoftransfertoanew 9 positionisthedateonwhichtheemployeeassumesthedutiesoftheposition. TheHospitalfurthersubmittedthat,bytransferringtheGrievortothefull-time positionasofDecember18,2000,itdealtwithherinthesamewayasanyother employeeandnotinadiscriminatorymannerbasedonherstatusasan employeeonpregnancyleave.Infact,hadthetransferbeeneffectedpriortothe timetheGrievorassumedthedutiesofthefull-timeposition,shewouldhave beengrantedpreferentialtreatmentbecauseofherabsenceonpregnancyleave. Furthertotheallegationofdiscrimination,theHospitalsubmitted thattheappropriatecomparisonisnotwiththeotheremployeeswhowereat workatthetimetheywereselectedasthesuccessfulapplicantsonthejob posting,butwithemployeesonothertypesofleave,whowerealsotransferredto theirnewpositionsasofthedatestheyassumedthedutiesofthesepositions. Accordingly,thereisnobasisuponwhichtoconcludethattheGrievorwas discriminatedagainstinrelationtohertransfertothefull-timeCoreLaboratory Technologistposition.Finally,theHospitalsubmittedthattheEmployment StandardsActprotectsemployees'rightsinthepositionstheyheldatthetime theybegantheirpregnancyleave.Itdoesnotprotectemployeesinpositions theyhavenotyetobtainedatthestartoftheirpregnancyleave. TheHospitalfurthersubmittedthatArticle13.07requiresan employeetoserveatrialperioduponpromotionortransfertoanewposition. Wereitotherwise,apart-timeemployeeonpregnancyleavecouldbeappointed 10 toafull-timepositionandtakeadvantageoftheaccrualofseniorityandother benefitsandthendecidetoreturntoherpart-timepositionornottoreturnto workatall.Ineithercase,theemployeewouldhavereceivedthebenefits associatedwiththefull-timepositionwithouteverhavingworkedintheposition. Moreover,althoughtheUnionseemedtosuggestthattheHospitalcould reconcileanyoverpaymentsmadetotheemployee,itwassubmittedthatthe EmploymentStandardsActprohibitsrecoveryinthesecircumstancesandthat thereisnoprovisioninthecollectiveagreementallowingforsuchrecovery.In anyevent,theHospitalsubmittedthattherewasnolegislativeintentthat employeesonpregnancyleavewouldreceivepreferentialtreatmentover employeesabsentforotherreasons,e.g.,employeesonworkers'compensation whoareappointedtotheirpositionsasofthedatetheyassumethedutiesofthe positions.However,theGrievordidreceiveseniorityandotherbenefits,towhich shewasentitledasapart-timeemployeeunderthecollectiveagreement,upon herreturntoworkfrompregnancyleave. Decision TheissueiswhethertheHospitalviolatedthecollectiveagreement intransferringtheGrievortofull-timestatuseffectiveuponthedateofherreturn toworkfrompregnancyleave. 11 ThefactsindicatethattheGrievor,whowasemployedasapart timeCoreLaboratoryTechnologist,appliedforajobpostingforafull-timeCore LaboratoryTechnologistpositiononJune16,2000,whichwasherlastdayof workpriortothecommencementofherpregnancyleave.Sometimeinearly July,theGrievorwasadvisedthatshehadbeenselectedasoneoffour successfulapplicantsonthejobposting.ApartfromtheGrievor,theother successfulapplicantsassumedtheirpositionseffectiveJuly17,2000.The Grievor,ontheotherhand,assumedherpositionuponherreturntoworkfrom pregnancyleaveonDecember18,2000,whichwastheeffectivedateofher transfertofull-timestatus.Nevertheless,theUnionclaimedthattheeffective dateoftheGrievor'stransfertofull-timestatusoughttohavebeenthesameas theothersuccessfulapplicants,namely,July17,2000.Itshouldbestated, however,thatthereisnoprovisioninthecollectiveagreementwhichdealswith theeffectivedateoftransfertoanewpositionand,inparticular,withtheeffective dateoftransferfrompart-timetofull-timestatus. Nevertheless,theUnionclaimedthattheGrievorwasprejudicedas aresultofaccessingthepregnancyleaveprovisionsoftheEmployment StandardsAct,referredtoinArticle14.05ofthecollectiveagreement.With respecttopregnancyleave,inparticular,theEmploymentStandardsAct providesfor(1)thereinstatementofanemployee,uponherreturntoworkfrom pregnancyleave,tothepositionwhichtheemployeeheldatthestartoftheleave or,ifthatpositionnolongerexists,toacomparableposition(Ss.53(1));and(2) 13 identifytheappropriategroupforcomparison(the"comparatorgroup"):see OrilliaSoldiers.AlthoughtheUnionsuggestedthattheothersuccessful applicantswouldcomprisethecomparatorgroup,Icannotagree.Followingthe reasoninginOrilliaSoldiers,apurposiveapproachmustbetakentoidentifying theappropriatecomparator.Asthepurposeofappointinganemployeetoa positionispresumablytoenabletheemployeetoactuallyworkintheposition, theappropriatecomparator,inmyview,isnottheothersuccessfulapplicants who,unliketheGrievor,wereabletoassumethedutiesofthefull-timeCore LaboratoryTechnologistposition,butotheremployeeswithinthebargainingunit asawholewhowereunabletoassumethedutiesofthepositionsatthetime theywereselectedassuccessfulapplicants,eitherbecausetheemployeeswere onleaveor,inthecaseofemployeeswhowereinattendanceatwork,because theirpositionswerenotimmediatelyavailable,amongotherreasons. ThequestionwhichremainsiswhethertheGrievorwas discriminatedagainstinrelationtothecomparatorgroup.Inthisregard,Ms. Leachtestifiedthattheeffectivedateoftransfertoanewpositionisthedateon whichanemployeestartsworkinthepositionand,further,that,ifanemployeeis absentonleave,thetransferiseffectiveasofthedateonwhichtheemployee returnstoworkfromleave.NotwithstandingMs.Leach'sevidence,Ms.Collyer wasunabletorecallanotherinstanceinwhichanemployeehadbeenawardeda positionpursuanttoajobpostingwhiletheemployeewasonanytypeofleave. Moreover,althoughMs.Leachmadereferencetotwoinstancesinwhichpart 15 periodisarequirementunderthecollectiveagreement.Moreover,thepurpose ofthetrialperiodisnotonlytoallowtheHospitaltorequirethatanemployeebe returnedtoherformerposition,butalsotogivethesameoptiontotheemployee. Ifthetrialperiodwereeliminated,thisoptionwouldberemovedfromboththe Hospitalandtheemployee,whichwouldputtheemployeeatadisadvantageif shewishedtoreverttoherformerposition.Aswell,althoughtherewassome suggestionthatthetrialperiodcouldhavebeenservedwhentheGrievor returnedtoworkfrompregnancyleave,Article13.07doesnotprovideforan employeetoreceivethebenefitsofanew(inthiscase,full-time)positionwhile deferringthetrialperiod. Withrespecttootherprovisionsofthecollectiveagreement,as therewasnodisputethattheGrievorreceivedallofherentitlementsasapart timeemployeeuponherreturntoworkfrompregnancyleave,thecollective agreementobligationshavebeenmet.Accordingly,itisunnecessarytoconsider thecasesrelieduponbytheUnion,whichholdthatanemployeeonpregnancy (orparental)leaveisentitledtomaintainallseniority-andservice-basedbenefits intheemployee'sexistingpositionasiftheemployeehadnotbeenabsenton leave:see,e.g.,ReHalton(RegionalMunicipality)andO.N.A.(1995),48 L.A.C.(4th)301(Burkett).Thatrequirementhasbeenmetinthiscaseinrelation tothepart-timepositionwhichtheGrievorheldatthestartofherpregnancy leave. 16 Intheresult,Ifindthattherehasbeennoviolationofthecollective agreement.Accordingly,thegrievancemustbedismissed. DATEDATTORONTO,this23rdayofApril,2002. SoleArbitrator