Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Tsotsos Group et al 12-02-03
INTHEMATTEROFANARBITRATION BETWEEN: THESCARBOROUGH'HOSPITAL (The"Employer"orthe"Hospital") AND ONTARIOPUBLICSERVICEEMPLOYEESUNIONANDITSLOCAL581 (The"Union"or"OPSEU") ANDINTHEMATTEROFANUMBEROFCLASSIFICATIONGRIEVANCES JANICEJOHNSTON-SOLEARBITRATOR APPEARANCES: FortheEmployer:RobertWeir PatriciaIgnagni Counsel Manager,LabourRelations FortheUnion: AlickRyder VeraTsotses Counsel UnionPresident HearingsinthismatterwereheldinTorontoonApril4andApril12,2011,and November2,2011. AWARD Thiscasehasalonghistory.Thisisthethirdandhopefullyfinaldecisioninthismatter. ThegrievancesbeforemewerefiledbytheunioninJanuary,2007Therearesixgroup grievancescoveringemployeesinfivedepartments.Thegrievancesareallwordedthe sameandreadasfollows: StatementofGrievance 1.Wefeelthatthehospitalhaswronglyclassifiedusasclerk4'sandshouldbe placedinaclerk5classification.2.Wefeelthatwehavebeeninequitablytreatedfromourfellowcolleagues. SettlementDesired 1.Equalpayforequalwork. 2.Tobetreatedequally. 3.Tobeclassifiedasclerk5'simmediately,withoutlossofpay,credits& seniorityduetotheabove. 4.Anyotheraward-thatanarbitratormaydeemappropriate. TheScarboroughHospitalcameintoexistenceastheresultofamergeroftwo hospitalsin1999.Thehospitalhastwocampusesorlocations,theGracesiteandthe Generalsite.ThegrievancesbeforemeariseoutoftheGeneralcampus. OnNovember27,2007,thepartiesmetand,withmyinvolvement,mediateda settlementthatprovidedforaprocessthatwasintendedtoresolveallofthe outstandingissues.Unfortunately,theprocessbrokedown.AsIhadremainedseizedof thematter,itcamebackonforhearingonMay20,2009.Atthattime,theHospital raisedapreliminaryobjection,assertingthatIwaswithoutjurisdictiontohearand determinethismatter.Theuniondisagreedwiththisposition.Thisissuewassetaside tobedeterminedifnecessary.Atthehearing,thepartiesagreedthatIwouldissuea consentorderasaninterimdecisionandIdidso.Onceagain,thepartieshopedto resolvetheissuesindispute.However,thisdidnothappenasthepartiesdisagreed withregardtotheresultsoftheprocesssetoutintheconsentorder.Therefore,the grievanceswereonceagainscheduledforhearing.ThistookplaceonMay4,2010. 2 AtthehearingheldonMay4,2010,theHospitalreneweditspreliminaryobjection.The HospitalassertedthatIwaswithoutjurisdictiontohearanddeterminethismatter.The uniondisagreedwiththisposition.TheHospitalaskedthatIprovidearulingonthe preliminaryobjection.Iwillbrieflysummarizethesubmissionsonthisissueandmy ruling. CounselfortheHospitalarguedthatIdidnothavethejurisdictiontodealwiththe grievancesasheassertedthatthecollectiveagreementdoesnotcontainaprovision thatwouldallowanemployeetoclaimtherighttobereclassified.Hesuggestedinhis argumentthatIdidnothavethejurisdictiontorewritethecollectiveagreementorread intoitafree-standingrightenablingemployeestogrievetheirclassification. CounselfortheunionsuggestedthatitistoolatefortheemployertoarguethatIdonot havejurisdictiontodetermineiftheindividualscoveredbythegrievancesare improperlyclassified.HepointedoutthattheMinutesofSettlementsignedin2007,in additiontoprovidingaprocessforevaluatingthejobs,stated: IftheJobEvaluationCommittee(the"Committee)cannotagreeontheevaluation ofanypositions,thematterswillbereferredtoArbitratorJohnston whowillconveneahearingtoresolvethematters,includinganyremedy,attheearliest possibledatethatisconvenienttotheparties. IntheeventthatanymatterisreferredtoArbitratorJohnston,thepartieswilldiscuss streamliningtheproceduretobeusedatarbitrationtofacilitatethe expeditiousresolutionofthematters. ArbitratorJohnstonwillremainseizedwithrespecttotheimplementationandinterpretationoftheseMinutesofSettlement. Unioncounselpointedoutthatthereisnoobjectiontomyjurisdictiontohearand determinethegrievancesbeforemeintheMinutesofSettlement.Theemployerdidnot raiseanyobjectiontomyjurisdictionpriortosigningtheSettlement.Infact,counselfor theunionarguedthattheoppositeistrue,asthepartiesspecificallyagreedtoreferthe matterbacktomeforresolutionintheeventthattheprocessisnotsuccessful.The 3 employerisnowseekingtoresilefromthisagreement.Theprocesswasnotsuccessful, thereforethegrievancesarenowbeforemefordetermination. Counselfortheunionassertedthatinanyevent,Idohavejurisdictiontodealwiththe grievancesbeforeme.Hepointedoutthateachofthegrievancesspecificallyclaimthat theindividualscoveredbythemhavebeeninequitablytreatedandrequestasaremedy equalpayforequalwork.Hesuggestedthatthisgroupofemployeeshasbeen discriminatedagainstastheyaresurroundedbyclerksperformingthesamecoreduties butwhoarereceivingahigherrateofpay.CounselarguedthattheHospitalisobligedto exercisethemanagementrightsinawaythatdoesnotdiscriminateagainstemployees. Itisdiscriminatorytohaveemployeesperformingequalworkforunequalpay.Counsel suggestedthatthoseindividualswhoarecurrentlypaidattheclerk5levelwerenever evaluatedbutgotthatlevelbymanagementfiat.Inhisview,themanagement "favourites"wererewardedwiththehigherclassificationcontrarytothecollective agreement. inmyawarddatedMay15,2010,Icametothefollowingconclusions: TheunionclaimsthatmanagementhasexerciseditsrightspursuanttoArticle4.01(b)inamannerthatiscontrarytotheexpressprovisionsofthecollective agreement,inparticularArticle5[NoHarassmentorDiscrimination].Ihavebeforemetwoexhibits-thecollectiveagreementandthegrievances.However,Ihave notheardanyevidenceinthiscase.Idonotknowhoworwhytheclassificationsoccupiedbythegrievorswereassessedattheclerkgrade4levelwhileotherclassifications andindividuals,whichtheunionclaimsperformthesamecoreduties,wereassessedattheclerkgrade5level.Theclerk5positionisonehigher onthewagescheduleandpaysmorethantheclerk4. TheemployerassertsthatArticle28doesnotapplyastherehasnotbeenachange inthedutiesoftheclerk4s,noraretheyanewposition.Theunionhasdisagreed withthisstatement.Onceagain,Ihavenotheardanyevidenceuponwhich Icanconcludeonewayortheotherhow,whenorwhythewageratesforthe clericalpositionsindisputewerearrivedat. CounselfortheHospitalarguesthatIdonothavethejurisdictiontodealwiththegrievances beforemeasemployeesdonothavetherighttogrievetheir 4 classification.However,Article28paragraph10makesitclearthat"employeesdonot, asaresultofthisarticle,waiveanyotherrightsgrantedthemintheCollective Agreement".Clearlymanagementhastherighttoclassifyemployeespursuanttothe managementsrightsclause.Butequallyclearistheunion'srighttoclaimthatin exercisingthisrightmanagementhasnotdoneso"inamannerconsistentwiththe provisionsofthisagreement": BytakingthepositionthatIdonothavejurisdictiontodealwiththegrievances afterhavingsignedMinutesofSettlementinwhichitisspecificallyagreedthatif thepartiescannotresolvetheissues"thematterswillbereferredtoArbitrator Johnstonwhowillconveneahearingtoresolvethematters,includingany remedy",theunionsuggeststhattheHospitalistryingtoresilefromthe agreementitsigned.Theemployerdisputesthisandmaintainsthatitnever agreedthatIhadjurisdictiontodealwiththegrievances.Onceagainthisisa factualdisputethatneedstoberesolved. Employeewageratesareafundamentaltermineverycollectiveagreement.The collectiveagreementbeforemecontainsasalarygridorwageschedulethatlists clericalpositionsandthesalaryrangeeachistobepaid.Thedisputebeforemeconcernsthewagerate,basedonhowaparticularpositionisclassified,thata groupofemployeesareentitledtobepaid.Ifitistrue,astheunionasserts,that managementhastreatedthegrievor'sinequitablyandinadiscriminatoryfashion contrarytothecollectiveagreement,thenthisisadisputethatflowsoutofthe collectiveagreementandisonethatIhavethejurisdictiontohearanddetermine. Ifmanagementhasexerciseditsrighttoclassifyemployeesinamannerthatis notconsistentwiththeprovisionsofthecollectiveagreementthattooisanissue whichIhavethejurisdictiontohearanddetermine. IthereforedismissedthepreliminarymotionraisedbytheHospitalandahearingwas convenedtodealwiththeunion'sassertionsthatthegrievorshadbeentreatedina discriminatorymannerandwrongfullyclassifiedpursuanttothecollectiveagreement. Iheardfromtwowitnessesonbehalfoftheunion,Ms.VeraTsotsos,thelocalUnion President,andMs.NormaClark,theVice-Presidentofthelocal.Ms.Andriana Katsimitsoulias,CompensationandBenefitsSpecialist,andMs.PatriciaIgnagni, Manager,LabourRelations,testifiedfortheHospital. Althoughthislistmaynotbeexhaustive,itappearsthatthepositionsindisputeare: 5 CLASSIFICATIONSOFCLERKS GRACE Unitexisting/classification GENERAL Code/Unitexisting/classification Clerk4D.I. CentralRegistration Emergency ClinicalDayCare 5 5 5 29 30 Emergencyregistrationclerks5 CentralRegistration5 Obstetrics5 ClinicalDayUnit5 DiabetesEducationClinic4 Pre-AdmissionsLab 4 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 28 4 Clerk4D.I.(Radiology)4 Clerk4D.I.(Radiology)4 Clerk4D.I.(BreastClinic)4 Clerk4D.l.(Part-timeM.R.I.)4 Clerk4D.I.(FrontDesk)4 Clerk4D.I.(BreastClinic)4 Clerk4D.I.(Ultrasound)4 Clerk4/SecretaryD.I.(MRI)4 Documentation/O.R. SchedulingClerk DataEntryClerk/Pre-admissions PhysioRehabClerk 4 4 Clerk4D.I.(Xray/Ultrasound/CT)4 Clerk4D.I.(Xray)4 Clerk4D.I.(NuclearMedicine)4 SpecialtyClinic4 PursuanttotheconsentorderissuedonMay25,2009,theJointEvaluationCommittee (JEC)metonOctober!5andNovemberI0,2009,toreviewthepositionsindispute. VeraTsotsosandNormaClarkwerepresentfortheunionandAndrianaKatsimitsoulias andPatriciaIgnagniattendedonbehalfoftheemployer.Specifically,thepurposeofthe meetingwastodoacomparisonbetweentheclerkgrade4sindisputebeforemeand thepositionreferredtoas"EmergencyRoomAdmittingRegistrationOfficeClerk"which wasaclerk5position.ThepartiesalsoattimesreferredtothispositionastheCentral 6 RegistrationClerk5.Itappearsfromdocumentsbeforemethattheofficialpositiontitle wasRegistrationOfficeClerkandthatitwaslocatedintheEmergencyRoom Admitting/CentralRegistrationDepartment.Forsimplicity'ssake,Iwillrefertoitinthe futureastheCentralRegistrationClerk.Atthemeeting,themembersoftheJEC reviewedquestionnairesforthevariousclericaljobsatissuewhichhadbeenfilledoutat apriortimebythejobincumbents.Thereisadisputebetweenthepartiesconcerning thequestionnairefilledoutbytheCentralRegistrationClerkpositionwhichIshall addressshortly. Theevaluationprocessinthiscaseconsistedoftheapplicationofanevaluationtool madeupoftwelvefactorstotheduties,assetoutinthequestionnaires,whichwere performedbythevariousclerks.Pointsareassignedandatotalnumberisreached. Clerkswhoreceive600-799pointsareevaluatedataclerk4andthosewhoreceive 800-1000arerankedataclerk5. AsaresultoftheworkdonebytheJEC,itwasdeterminedthatthepositionsatissue beforemeallreceivedbetween600-800points.Whiletheunionagreedthatthe positionsscoredbetween600-800pointsitwasstillarguedthattheyshouldbeclassified asclerk5s. Attheheartofthedisputeabouttheevaluationprocessfortheclerkswasthescoringfor theCentralRegistrationClerkposition.BasedonthedocumentsutilizedbytheJEC,it ultimatelyreceivedatotalpointscoreof715butremainedasaclerkgrade5.Ms. KatsimitsouliasandMs.Ignagnitestifiedthatthisresultoccurredbecausetheparties hadagreedtoevaluatethispositionwithouttakingintoaccounttheEmergencyRoom ("ER")componentofthejob.WhentheERdutieswereadded,thepositionreceived enoughpointstoputitover800andresultedintheclerkgrade5ranking. Ms.Tsotsos,whotestifiedonbehalfoftheunion,agreedthatpriortothefirstmeetingin OctobertherehadbeendiscussionaboutexcludingtheERdutiesbutsincetherewas 7 nowaytoseparatethetwoshetestifiedthattheywereincluded.Asaresultofthe evaluationprocess,theCentralRegistrationClerkreceivedascoreof715points.Ms. Tsotsosalsotestifiedthatthereweretwopositionsperformingregistrationdutiesinthe EmergencyRoomAdmitting/CentralRegistrationDepartment.Shereferredtooneasthe UnitClerkandtheotherastheRegistrationClerkinEmergency.Theemployer disagreedthatthereweretwopositions.TheemployershowedMs.Tsotsosadocument indicatingthatanevaluationdonefortheCentralRegistrationClerkpositionwhich includedtheERdutiesresultedinascoreof800andaclerk5ranking.Afterreviewing thisdocument,Ms.Tsotsosindicatedthat'althoughshefeltthatthepositionhadbeen properlyscoredat715(includingtheERduties)shedidnotdisagreethatitshouldbea clerk5. Ms.Clark,thesecondwitnesscalledonbehalfoftheunion,rememberedthe conversationwithregardtowhetherornottheERcomponentofthejobwastobe includeddifferently.Whenitwasputtoherincross-examinationthatthemanagement witnesseswouldtestifythattheevaluationoftheERAdmittingRegistrationOfficeClerk whichtookplaceonOctober15t"didnotevaluatetheERportionofthejobsheagreed indicating"okthatwouldbefair,thatiswhatIsaidbefore". Ms.Katsimitsouliastestifiedonbehalfoftheemployerthatthequestionnairefilledoutby theCentralRegistrationClerkswasnotconsideredtobeaformaljobevaluation.Itdid notcontaintheERcomponentofthejobasthecommitteewasonlycomparingthe registrationdutiesperformedbytheclerk4positionsindispute,withtheregistration dutiesperformedbytheCentralRegistrationClerks. Ms.IgnagnigaveevidenceonbehalfoftheHospital.Atthetimeofthehearing,shewas theManagerofLabourRelationsfortheHospital.However,whentheoriginalMinutesof SettlementweresignedonNovember27,2007,shewasthepresidentoftheunion local.Ms.Ignagniwasaskedwhatthepartiesmeantbythefirstparagraphofthe MinutesofSettlementwhichreads: EachgrievorwillcompleteaJobInformationQuestionnaireasreferredtoin Article28ofthecollectiveagreementbynolaterthanDecember31,2007.Each RegistrationOfficeClerk(Clerk5)inCentralRegistrationwillcompleteaJob InformationQuestionnaireasreferredtoinArticle28ofthecollective'agreement bynolaterthanDecember31,2007.Thisisbeingdoneforcomparisonpurposes visavisthepositionscoveredbytheGrievances.TheEmergencyRoom RegistrationClerk5sarenotpartofthisprocess. MS.Ignagnitestifiedthatthepurposeofthislanguagewastoprovideforaprocess allowingafaircomparisonoftheregistrationdutiesperformedbyvariousclerksina numberofpositions.TheERdutiesperformedbytheCentral:RegistrationClerkswere notincludedinthisevaluationprocess.Whenthequestionnairewasfilledoutbythe incumbentsoftheCentralRegistrationClerkposition,theyweretoldnottoincludetheir ERduties.Thisconcernedthemastheyfelttheywerebeingaskedtofilloutajob evaluationquestionnairewhichdidnotincludealloftheirduties.Itwasmadeclearto themthattheirjobwasnotbeingevaluatedbutthatjustpartofit,theregistrationduties, werebeingusedasacomparatortoevaluateotherpositions. Decision ThereisnodisputethatthepositionwhichwasevaluatedbytheJECreferredtoasthe CentralRegistrationClerk,receivedascoreof715points,Thisscorewouldputitinthe 600-799pointrangewhichwouldresultinitbeingclassifiedasaclerk4.Theunion claimsthatthefactthatitwasclassifiedasaclerk5andcontinuestobeclassifiedasa clerk5,despitetheevaluationprocess,isdiscriminatory.Theunionassertsthatifthe CentralRegistrationClerkpositionisrankedataclerk5with715points,thenallofthe otherregistrationclerkpositionsthatweregiven715pointsormoreshouldbe reclassifiedtoaclerk5aswell. WhatisindisputeinthiscaseiswhetherornottheEmergencyRoomdutiesperformed bytheCentralRegistrationClerkpositionwereincludedinorexcludedfromthe evaluationofthedutiesconductedbytheJEC.Ihavecarefullyreviewedtheevidence givenbyallthewitnessesinthiscaseandIamsatisfiedthatatthetimetheCentral 9 RegistrationClerkpositionwascomparedtotheotherclericalpositionstheERduties werenotincluded:Threeofthefourwitnessestestifiedthattheywerenot.Ms.Ignagni gaveevidencethattheincumbentsintheCentralRegistrationClerkpositionweretold nottoincludetheERdutiesandthattheywereconcernedaboutthis.Thisseemslikea normalreasonableconcernandlendsweighttotheemployer'sversionoftheevents. Basedontheevidencebeforeme,itseemsreasonableinthecircumstancesto concludethattheERdutieswerenotincludedintheevaluationwhichresultedinthe CentralRegistrationClerkpositionbeinggiven715points.Iwouldalsoliketomakeit veryclearthatalthoughIhaveconcludedthattheERdutieswerenotpartofthe evaluation,IdonotbelievethatMs.Tsotsoswasbeinguntruthfulwhenshetestifiedthat theywere.Iamsatisfiedthatshesimplyrememberstheeventsdifferently.Giventhe passageoftimewhichhasoccurredinthiscaseitisnotsurprisingthatmemoriesdiffer. Theunionalsosuggeststhattherearetwoseparatetypesofregistrationclerksinthe EmergencyDepartment.Oneworksoutsidetheemergencyroomandiscalledcentral registrationclerkandtheotherworksinsidetheemergencyroomandiscalled emergencyregistrationclerk.Theemployerdisagreesandassertsthatthereisoneclerk locatedintheEmergencyRoomAdmitting/CentralRegistrationDepartmentandthatitis officiallycalledRegistrationOfficeClerk.Thatpositionincludestheperformanceof registrationdutiesintheemergencyroom.Regardless.ofwhethertherearetwo positionsorone,IamsatisfiedthattheERdutiesperformedbytheclerkorclerksare thedutiesthatdistinguishitfromalloftheotherclerkscoveredbythegrievance.These dutieswerenottakenintoaccountintheevaluationprocess.Itistheseduties,whichare notperformedbythegrievors,thatresultinahigherscorefortheCentralRegistration Clerkandcausethepositiontoberatedataclerkgradefive. Theunionraisedallegationsofdiscriminationinthemannerinwhichthevarious registrationclerkshavebeenevaluated.Thereisnoevidencebeforemethat establishesanydiscriminationorunfairtreatmentofthegrievorsonthepartofthe 10 employer.Iamsatisfiedthattheevaluationexerciseengagedinbythepartiespursuant totheMinutesofSettlementandsubsequentconsentorderwasfairandthattheresults ofthisprocessarealsofairandreasonable.Thepurposeoftheprocessoutlinedinthe MinutesofSettlementwastodetermineifthegrievedpositionswerefairlyand appropriatelyevaluatedasclerk4.Iamsatisfiedthattheprocessfollowedwas appropriateandfair. Theunionhasassertedthatmanagementhastreatedthegrievor'sinequitablyandina discriminatoryfashioncontrarytothecollectiveagreement.Iamsatisfiedbasedonallof theevidencebeforemethatthishasnotoccurred.Ialsoconcludethatmanagement hasnotexerciseditsrighttoclassifyemployeesinamannerthatisinconsistentwiththe provisionsofthecollectiveagreement. TheunionhasaskedmetoreclassifynumerousClerkfourpositionsbacktothedateof thefilingofthegrievances.AstheywerefiledinJanuary,2007,todosowouldbevery costly.TosubstantiateaclaimofthismagnitudeIwouldneedclearandcogent evidencethattheHospitalhasbreachedthecollectiveagreement.Idonothavethis evidence. Thegrievancesarethereforedismissed.Intheeventthatthepartieshaveany difficultieswithregardtotheinterpretationorimplementationofthisdecision,Ishall remainseized. DatedatToronto,Ontario,this3rddayofFebruary,2012 Ja,ceJo,oon Arbitrator