Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSchulte 05-08-09FROM:FAXNO,: Aug.ii200509:06AMP2 C.7.1Xo INTHEMA'FFEROFANARBITRATION BETWEEN: TORONTOCOMMUNITYHOUSINGCORPORATION (The"Employer") AND ONTARIOPUBLICSERVICEEMPLOYEESUNION,LOCAL591 (The"Union") AND TASCHASCHULTE (The"Grievor") JANICEJOHNSTON-SOLEARBITRATOR APPEARANCES: FortheEmployer: FortheUnion: WilliamLeMay DonMartin ThehearingofthismatterwasheldinTorontoonJuly11,2005. FROH;FAXNO.:Aug.ii200509;06AMP3 AWARD IwasaskedbythepartiestOactassolearbitratortohearthegrievancesof TaschaSchulte.Therearetwogrievances.Thehearingofthesematterstookplaceon July11,2005. ThefirstgrievancefiledbytheuniononbehalfofMs.Schulteallegedthatshe hadbeenimproperlylaidoffbytheemployercontrarytothecollectiveagreementand thatthisamountedtoanunjustdismissal.Inthesecondgrievance,theuniontookthe positionthatthegrievor,uponherlayoff,hadnotbeenpaidallofthebenefitsandother entitlementsthatshewasowedpursuanttothecollectiveagreement. Afterconsultingwithcounsel,wedeterminedthatitwasappropriatetoengagein mediationinanattempttosettlethegrievances.Despitehercounsel'sadvicetothe contrary,thegrievorrefusedtoagreetothesettlementproposedbytheemployerand acceptabletotheunion,Asaresult,thecasewasarguedbeforemebasedonagreed tofacts. Theagreedstatementoffactsreadsasfollows: TheEmployer,theTorontoCommunityHousingCorporation("TCHC")andtheUnion,OntarioPublicServiceEmployeesUnionLocal592("OPSEU")arepartiestoaCollectiveAgreement,attachedheretoasExhibit 1.WhilethisagreementexpiredonDecember31"t,2001,itremains operativeasaresultoftheprovisionsoftheLabourRelations Act. Background AsaresultofarestructuringthattheTCHCengagedin,anewposition ofTenantServicesCo=ordinatorwascreated,andenumber ofexistingclassificationswereeliminated.Asaresultofthe resultsofthejobcompetitionforthenewTenantServicesCo-ordinator,anumberofpeoplewerelaidofffromtheirpreviouslyexisting positions,andtheyexercisedtheirbumpingrights. FROM:FAXNO.:Aug.Ii2005Bg:EAMP4 -2 Atthetimethatthisbumpingoccurred,TaschaSchulte("theGriever")wasemployedasaTendersClerk,withaclassificationofLevel 6(CA-06)undertheCollectiveAgreement.Hersenioritydate wasJuly17t,1999. Thebumpingultimatelyaffectedthegriever,whowasbumpedoutof herpositionbyMs.NorgisMohammed,whohadbeenatLevel8(CA-08)undertheCollectiveAgreement,andwhohadasenioritydate ofAugust17t",1992.Thepartiesagreethatthebumpingwas proper. Asaresultofthisbumping,thegrieverwasgivenasurplusletteron November4h,2004(Exhibit2).Atthistime,becauseofthe limitationsundertheCollectiveAgreement,thegrieverwasnotable tobumpanyoneelse.Therefore,shewasgivenasurplusnoticeinaccordance withArticle17.2oftheCollectiveAgreement.There wasoneemployee,Mr.BradleyHenderson,whowasjuniortothegriever andinthesameclass,buthispositionhadbeendeleted,effectiveMay21t,2004. TheGrieverwasthenofferedthetemporarypositionofOfficeServicesClerk,bywayofatelephonecallinearlyNovemberof2004.Asubsequentexchangeofe-mailstookplacebetweenthegdevor andMr.VishnuRamsamujh,inwhichthegrieverconfirmedthat shewasrejectingthistemporaryassignment. Subsequently,onNovember25h,2004,thegrieverwasofferedanassignment asaMaintenanceEnquiryClerk,whichisaLevel6position(SeeExhibit2).Thegrieverdeclinedthisposition,andwaspaid outtheremainingportionofthesixmonthsnoticethatshewas entitledtoundertheprovisionsofArticle17.2oftheCollective Agreement. AletterconfirmingtheGriever'srejectionoftheoffer,andoutliningherentitlements tonoticewassenttoheronDecember7th,2004(attachedasExhibit3).ThisletterreplacedaletterthatwasdatedNovember 25t",2004,whichisnotrelevantfortheseproceedings. TheGrievances ThegrieverhasfiledtWogrievances,asfollows: Grievance04592-06,whichallegesthattheemployerhasbreached Articles17.2.1,17.3.3,40.4(b)andtheEmployment FROM:FAXNO.:Rug.Ii200509:07AMP5 .n -3 StandardsAct,byfailingtopayallthebenefitsandentitlementsowing uponlayoff.ItisattaQhedasExhibit4, Grievance04-592-07,whichallegesthattheemployerhassubjectedthe grievertounjustdismissalcontrarytoArticles"C",17.4,17.6,17.8.1,17.12,17.15,and21.8.1.ItIsattachedas Exhibit5. SubsequentEvents OnApril12u',2005,theGrieverwasrecalledtothepositionofMaintenance EnquiryClerkintheResponseCentre.Thispositionwas ataLevel6undertheCollectiveAgreement.Therecallletter andattachedjobspecificationareExhibit6. TheGrieversubsequentlymetwithMr.RamsamujhonApril27'h,2005todiscussthisposition.Duringthecourseofthismeeting,thegrieverwasadvisedthatherrecallrightswouldbelostifsherefused thisposition.Afurtherlettertothegrieverwasprepared,attachingtheMemorandumofAgreementbetweenOPSEUandTCHC respectingtheMaintenanceEnquiryClerk.TheMay2"°,2005letter,andtheattachmentsareExhibit7. Bywayofane-maildatedMay9u',2005,thegrieveradvisedthatshe wasdecliningtheMaintenanceEnquiryClerkposition(Exhibit8).Asaresult,thegrieverwasadvised,bywayofaletterdatedMay 12th,2005,thatshehadlostherrecallrightsundertheCollective Agreement,attachedasExhibit9.Thegrieverhadlosther recallrightseffectiveMay9h,2005atthelatest. OnMay16,2005,OPSEUandTCHCenteredintoanagreementrespecting aretroaotlvewageincrease.Thatagreementisattached asExhibit10. Therelevantlanguageinthecollectiveagreementis: 71Thenormalhoursofworkforfull-timeemployeesshallbethirty-sixand one-quarter(361/4)hoursperweekandsevenandone-quarter(7 1/4)hoursperday. 7.2Itisunderstoodthatotherarrangementsregardinghoursofworkandovertime maybeenteredintobetweenthepartieswithrespecttovariable FROM;FR×NO,:Rug.11288509:@TAMP6 -4 '1 workdaysand/orvariabbworkweeks.Wheretheemployeesweekyscheduleisadjusted bytheemployer,itisunderstoodthattheirsalarywillbe adjustedbasedontheirbasichourlyrate, 17.2.1Anemployeeshal!receivesix(6)months'noticeoflay-offorpayin lieuthereof. 17,3.3Whereanemployee,whohavingexercisedalltheirrightsunderthis article,islaidoff,s/heshallbeentitledtoexternalcareercounsellingupto amaximumofeighthundreddollars($800).Theemployeeshall,inaddition,beentitledtoreceivetwo(2)weekssalaryforeachyearofcontinuous servicetoamaximumoftwelve(12)weekspay,Theemployee shallmaintaintheirrecallrightsunderArticle17.16.1ofthis agreement. 17.4Whereanemployeeisidentifiedassurplustheyshallbeassignedon thebasisoftheirsenioritytoavacancyinthebargainingunitprovidedthey arequalifiedtoperformtheworkandthesalarymaximumofthevacancy isnotgreaterthanthreepercent(3%)abovenortwentypercent(20%)belowthemaximumsalaryoftheirclassification,asfollows: ravacancywhichisinthesameclassorpositionasthe employee'sclassorposition;-avacancyinaclassorpositioninwhichtheemployeehasservedduring theircurrenttermofcontinuousservice:or, -anothervacancy. 17.6AnemployeewhodoesnotattendaplacementInterviewwhenrequested bytheEmployerorwhodoesnotacceptanassignmentinaccordance withSection17,4shallbelaidoffandtheprovisionsofSections 17.7,17,8,1and17.12.1shallnotapply. 17.16.1Whereapersonwho,priortorelease,hadcompletedatleastnine(9)monthsofcontinuousservice,hasbeenreleasedandapositionbecomes vacantintheM.TH.C.withineighteen(18)monthsaftertheirrelease,noticeofthevacancyshallbeforwardedtothepersonatleastfourteen(14)dayspriortotheclosingdateofthecompetitionandtheyshall beappointedtothevacancyif: (a)theyapplywithinthefourteen(14)days,and(b)theyarequalifiedtoperformtherequiredduties,and(c)nootherpersonwhoisqualifiedtoperformtherequireddutiesand whohasagreaterlengthofcontinuousserviceappliesforthevacancy pursuanttothissubsection. FROH:FRXNO.:Au9.li288589:88AHP7 17.16.3Apersonshalllosetheirrightsunder17.16.1when: (a)theydonotattendaplacementinterviewwhenrequestedbythe Employer;or,(b)theydonotacceptanappointmentinaccordancewith17.16.1; or,(c)havingacceptedanappointmentinaccordancewith17.16.1.•O theyfalltoreportfordutywthntw(2)weeksofreceivingwrittennoticeoftheappointment. 40.4(b)Anemployeewhohascompletedaminimumoffive(5)yearsofcontinuous serviceandwhoceasestobeanemployeeforanyreason otherthan, (i)dismissalforcause,or (ii)abandonmentofposition, isentitledtoseverancepayforcontinuousservicefromandaftertheimplementation dateoftheShortTermSicknessPlanequaltoone(1)weekofsala[yforeachyearofservice. Inadditiontotheagreedstatementoffacts,numerousdocumentswerefiledwith meonconsent. Afterreviewingtheagreedstatementoffacts,thevariousdocumentsbeforeme andthesubmissionsoftheparties,Ihavecometothefollowingconclusions, ThegrievorwasnotifiedonNovember4,2004,thatduetoareorganizationin thecompany,shewasbeingbumpedfromherpositionbyamoresenioremployee. Shewasdeclaredsurplusandpursuanttoarticle17.2.1shewasentitledtosixmonths noticeorpayinlieu.Afterthegrievorbecamesurplus,theprovisionsofarticle17.4 appliedtoher.ShewasofferedatemporaryassignmentasanOfficeServicesClerk,whichshedeclined.LaterinNovember,2004,shewasofferedanassignmentasa MaintenanceEnquiryClerk,whichshealsodeclined.Becausethegrievorrefusedthepositionsshewasoffered,pursuanttoarticle17.6,shewaslaidoffandreceivedthe payinlieuofnoticetowhichshewasentitled. FROM'.FAXNO.:Aug.II200509'.08P8 -6 Althoughinitiallytheunionhadconcernsthatajunioremployeecontinuedtoworkafterthe griever'slayoff,atthearbitrationtheemployerprovideddocumentationwhichsatisfied theunionthatinfactthisindividual'spositionhadbeeneliminatedand thatheonlycontinuedtoworkforashortperiodoftimepursuanttoatemporaryassignment.Therefore,atthearbitrationofthismatter,theunionindicatedthattherewasnodisputethatthelayoffofthegrieverwasproperandthatthefirstgrbvance allegingimproperlayoffwasunfounded. Inaccordancewitharticle17.16.1,thegrieveronApril12,2005,wasrecalledto workandofferedthepositionofMaintenanceEnquiryClerk.Sherefusedthispositionas thehoursofworkforthispositionweredifferentfromthoseshehadpreviouslyworked. Inherview,thesenewhoursofworkwereaviolationofthecollectiveagreement,Article 7.1ofthecellectiveagreementdefineswhatthenormalhoursofworkforfull-time employeesshallbe.Article7.2ofthecolleGtiveagreementestablishesthattheparties mayenterintaotherarrangementsregardinghoursofwork.Thehoursofworkforthe MaintenanceEnquiryClerkwerethesubjectofamemorandumofsettlementbetween theunionandemployerpursuanttoArticle7.2.Itwasnotindisputethatthehourswere differentfromthehourspreviouslyworkedbythegriever.Atthearbitration,althoughit wasexplainedtothegrieverthatitwasentirelyopentothepartiestonegotiateother arrangementspursuanttaarticle7.2ofthecollectiveagreement,shedidnotacceptor agreewiththeexplanationshewasgiven. Althoughthegrbvordidnotacceptthattheunionandemployerwerefreetanegotiate differenthoursofworkforagroupofemployeespursuanttoarticle7.2ofthecollective agreement,theonionagreedthatthepartieswerefreetodosoandthatthe specificarrangementswhichhadbeenmadewereentirelylegitimate. Asaresultofherrefusaltoacceptthepositionshewasoffered,thegriever,underarticle17.16.3ofthecollectiveagreement,lostherrightstorecall.Accordingly,byMay9,2005,thegrieverhad losther recall rightsandtherewas nodispute between the FROM:FAXNO.:Au9,Ii200509:08AMP9 -7 partiesthatatthattimeshebecameentitledtoafinalpayoutofseverancepursuanttoarticle 17.3.3andarticle40.4(b).Thepartiesagreethatthifinalpayoutentitlesherto anadditionalpaymentofsixteenandone-halfweekspay, Therefore,tosummarize,therewasnodisputebetweenthepartieswithregardto theinterpretationoftheapplicablewordinginthecollectiveagreement.ThepartiesagreedthatpursuanttoArticles17.2.1and17.4thegrieverwasproperlylaidoffanddeclared surplus.Thepartiesalsoagreedthatonceshehadbeendeclaredsurplusand laidoff,shehadrecallrightsinaccordancewithArticle17.16.1.Therewasalsono disputebetweenthepartiesthatoncethegdevorrefusedthepositionshehadbeenofferedonApril12,2005,inaccordancewithArticle17.16.3shelostherrighttorecall andthatheronlyremainingdghtsweretoseverancepayInaccordancewiththe collectiveagreement. Theonlydisputebetweenthepartiesatthispointpertainstotherateofpaywhich shouldapplytothecalculationofseverancepayandthepaymentshereceivedinlieuof notice.Thequestionbeforemeiswhetherornotthegrieverisentitledtobepaidatrates negotiatedbythepartieswhichwerethesubjectofanagreementdatedMay16,2005.Theunionarguedthatshewasentitledtoreceivetheagreed-towageincreasesof threepercentperyearforboththepayinlieuofnoticeandforthefinalsixteenandonehalfweeksofseverancepay.Theunionarguedthatasshehadnotseveredher employmentatthetimethatthenewrateswerenegotiated,shewasentitledtoa 'n retroactivepaymet. Theemployerdisagreedwiththispositionanda[guedthattherewasnothingthat entitledhertotheretroactivepayment.Intheemployer'sview,oncethegdevorlosther recallrightsunderthecollectiveagreement,whichshedidwhensherefusedthejobofferon May9,2005,shewasnolongeranemployeeandwaseffectivelyterminated.ThememorandumofagreementprovidingfortheincreaseswassignedonMay16,2005,whichisaftertheemploymentofthegrieverwassevered.Counselpointedout F:FAXNO.:Aug.ii200509:09AMPIO r8 thatthegrieverreceivedaretroaotivepaymentforallofthehoursthatsheactually workedduringtherelevantperiodandthatthereisnothinginthememorandumof settlementthatentitleshertoanyretroactivepaymentonnoticeorseverancepayments. AftercarefullyreviewingallofthedocumentsandtheagreedStatementoffacts andhavingregardtothefinalsubmissionsoftheparties,Iamoftheviewthatthe gdevorisnotentitledtotheretroactiveincreaseontheseverancemoniesandthe paymentinlieuofnoticeasthisincreasewasfinalizedafterherdghtsunderthe collectiveagreementhadeffectivelyterminated.Inaddition,thereisnoindicationthat thepartiesintendedthisretroactiveincreasetoextendtoemployeesinthegriever's situation. Accordingly,thetwogrievancesareherebydismissed. Duringthemediation,thegrieverwasverydifficulttodealwith.Althoughitwas carefullyandfullyreviewedwithher,sherefusedtoacceptthatherlayoffwasnotin violationofthecollectiveagreementandthattheunionandtheemployerhadtherightto agreetomodifythehoursofworkforagroupofemployeespursuanttoArticle7.2ofthecollective agreement.However,despitethegriever'suncooperativebehaviour,theunion wassuccessfulinobtainingasettlementofthegrievanceswhichwasveryfavourableto thegriever.SherefusedtoagreetOitandinsistedthathergrievancesbelitigated.Inthe result,itappearsthatthegrievershouldhavetakentheunion'sadvice. DatedatTorontothis9hdayofAugust,2005 Johnston Arbitrator