HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 12-05-03• P SEU Hamilton Regional Office
DATE: Feb 3, 2009
,, . .. L i :
z 1' • i 'i
ISSUE OF GRIEVANCE: Clothing Allowrance;Art. 20.01(3)
GRIEVOR: • . ;•
LOCAL PRESIDENT: Mario Posteraro
115 Rosemary Lane
Ancaster, Ontario
L9G 20
STEWARD: • Thomson
STAFF REP: Patr' is Haberrnann - Niagara Regional Office
STAFF REP SIGNATURE:
4--
E L
i 'N
. . . . . . . . . .
t.
-.AP91TRATlOf4,,,,'�:��*,�".7.-z.,*t*.-'.�.�---�
G"' BAT'
-7
g j
p
- l �g i
V gg g -
FR Em M l-.
9 TO
A
OPSE la,
LOCN N. I; Q.
--qREET -t
j POSTAL r
-OWN/
T
W R.O.F.
N" CITY .il...
".HOME t.'
F)(T.
TEL' *�. 77:
g
CLASSIFICATION / tz
...
M CLASS'. TITLE O'F Illi
IWO
DEPARTMENT . . . ........ . ...
35� SECTION OR
POSITION TITLE
EMPLOYED By"
A
MINISTRY /COLLEGE /BPS
OW�
. . . . . . . . . . .
wdiek` N
CAYI
NN
POSTAL
I M-0 TOWN/ -CdOE:-
• . ...... . . . .... . ..........
. ......... ..... ..
....... . . . . ........................ .. ..................
... . ....... ......... ......... . .
----- ------
n C . . .. . ..........
J�-
........... .r ,_yCt? ,,........_.4
�:---SIGNATURE
DATE . ..............
. ......... ....
. . . .... .....
N -)SI.GNAf6RE OF
NAME TEL:.(......._ CLQ
STEW.A.- . ....... .......... . . .... ......... .. ..
NAME /SIGNATURE OF
TEL.:
LOCAL PRESIDENT
........... . ..........
MAN'AGEM-EN.T/`*:%..�,.'*.,--*I:,.�*...t.;,*:
-ggiU� sam
W ITt MANAGEM
ENT - GREN t-"SfEWARD:-
CANARY ,-REGIONAL OFFICE
PINK= ARBITRATOR �-:-,
GOLDENROD - GRI
0*� "or
-al-- Ng
Or
Between:
In the Matter of an Arbitration
City of Hamilton
one
(The "Employer")
Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 256
(The "Union")
Re: Policy Grievance —Uniform Allotment - New Hires
Appearances:
For The Employer:
For The Union:
Arbitrator- Brian Sheehan
Mark Mason
Mitch Bevan
Hearing conducted in Hamilton on April 30, 2012
The Union filed a grievance dated, October 6, 2008 alleging that the
Employer violated Article 20.01(3) of the collective agreement, by failing to issue
new hires the proper uniform allotment.
Article 20.01 (3) reads as follows:
Upon hiring new full-time or part-time staff the employee will
be issued the items in the list in Schedule "C". These items
shall constitute the full uniform, and protective and necessary
equipment allotment for the employee's first year, but safety
eyewear and safety footwear are dealt elsewhere in this
Collective Agreement.
It is not disputed that the Employer did in fact fail to issue the full and proper
uniform allotment to the new hires in accordance with the collective agreement.
Further to this point, the Employer in its Step 2 Response dated November 21,
2008, acknowledged and apologized for the delay in supplying full and proper
uniforms to new hires.
It is the position of the Employer, specifically EMS
Management, they regret the delay and apologize to the
employees. EMS Management continues to work with the
vendor and purchasing to improve this situation.
The Union requests a declaration that the Employer violated the collective
agreement and further to that, the Union requests an award of $1,000.00 as
remedy for the said violation.
The Employer submits that it acted in good faith at all times, made all
reasonable efforts to supply the uniforms and did not intentionally fail to fulfill the
collective agreement requirements. The Employer submits that in these
1
circumstances, there is no justification for an award of compensatory damages to
the Union.
That a degree of frustration may have been experienced by the employees
involved, and the Union, can be appreciated. It is the legitimate expectation of
the parties that commitments made, and obligations undertaken, at the
bargaining table be complied with; and that the failure to abide by such
commitments will potentially support a claim for substantive relief. That being
said, it is my view that it would not be appropriate, in these particular
circumstances, to award compensatory damages to the Union. This is not a
case where there is evidence of hardship suffered by the affected employees as
a consequence of the Employer's breach that warrants compensatory relief; nor
is it a case where it has been established that the Employer acted in bad faith
suggesting that an award of punitive damages would be in order. It is also noted
that the Employer acknowledged and apologized for the delay in supplying the
uniforms.
In conclusion, therefore, it is my determination that the appropriate remedy is a
declaration that the Employer breached Article 20.01 (3) of the collective
agreement and thereby violated the collective agreement.
Dated at Mississauga this 3rd day of May 2012.
2