Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBalevi 12-09-21INTHEMATTEROFANARBITRATION BETWEEN: SenecaCollegeofAppliedArtsandTechnology, Employer, -and OntarioPublicServiceEmployeesUnion, Union BEFORE:MichaelBendel,Arbitrator APPEARANCES:FortheUnion: LauraR.Johnson,GrievanceOfficer JaniceHagan,LocalPresident HadiMajzoub,Steward EstherBalevi,Grievor FortheEmployer: DanielMichaluk,Counsel AmandaLawrence,Student-at-law CindyMacDonald,SeniorHumanResourcesConsultant HeardinMarkham,Ontario,onSeptember!0,2012. -2 INTERIMARBITRALAWARD ThegrievanceofEstherBalevi,aLibraryTechnician,relatestoherassignmentfollowing hernoticeoflay-offinJuly2011.Specifically,thegrievorcomplainsthat,followinghernoticeoflay-off,the employerassignedhertoapositioninalowerpaybandthanheroldjob,ratherthantoapositioninherown payband.Accordingtothegrievance,thiswascontrarytoArticle15.4.3ofthecollectiveagreementsince variouspositionsatherownpayband,thedutiesofwhichshecouldhavesatisfactorilyperformed,were filledbyemployeeswithlessseniorilylhanherself. Theemployerhaspresentedapreliminaryobjectiontomyjurisdictiontohearlhisgriev ance,namelythattheunion,inreferringthegrievancetoarbitration,failedtocomplywithArticle18.6.2.tof thecollectiveagreement,whichrequiresthatawrittenreferraltoarbitrationspecifythepositionstowhich thegrievorlaysclaim.Tothisobjection,theunionhasrespondedthattherewasanoralagreementwiththe employerallowingtheuniontospecifyatalaterdatethepositionssoughtbythegrievor,anagreementwith whichtheunioncomplied. Thisinterimawardislimitedtoaconsiderationofthepreliminaryobjection. Therelevantprovisionsoflhecollectiveagreementarethese: -3 15.4.3Bumpingprocedure TheemployeesoidentifiedshallbeassignedbytheCollegetothefirstpositiondeterminedin accordancewiththefollowingsequence: toavacantpositioninthesamepaybandprovidedhe/shecansatisfactorilyperformthe coredutiesandresponsibilitiesofthejob.Ifthereisnosuchposition,then; tothepositionbeldbythemostjunioremployeewithinhis/hersamepaybandprovided he/shecansatisfactorilyperformthecoredutiesandresponsibilitiesofthejobandhe/shehas greaterseniority.Ifthereisnosuchposition,then; toavacantpositioninthepaybandwithamaximumrateonelowerthantheemployee's ownpaybandprovidedhe/shecansatisfactorilyperformthecoredutiesandresponsibilitiesofthe job.Ifthereisnosuchposition,then; tothepositionheldbythemostjunioremployeeinthepaybandwithamaximumrateone lowerthantheemployee'sownpaybandprovidedbe/shecansatisfactorilyperformthecoreduties andresponsibilitiesofthejobandhe/shehasgreaterseniority; theprovisionsofthelasttwosectionsshallberepeateduntilallpaybandshavebeen reviewedindescendingorderofmaximumrateandeitheravacantpositionorapositionheldbya morejunioremployeeisidentifiedandtheemployeeaffectedcansatisfactorilyperformthecore dutiesandresponsibilitiesofthejob.Ifnosuchpositionisidentifiedtheemployeeshallbelaidoff. t8.6.2.1LayoffGrievance AnemployeeclaimingimproperapplicationofArticlet5.4.3shallstateinthegrievancetheposi tion(s)andnameofincumbent,ifany,towbichtheemployeeclaimsentitlement. TheCollegewillprovidethecurrentPDFsofthepositions,namedinthegrievance,totheemployee withinthree(3)daysafterthefilingofthegrievance. Ifthegrievanceisnotresolved,thenthewrittenreferraltoarbitrationshallspecify,fromtheposi tion(s)originallydesignated,nomorethanfour(4)positionswhichshallthereafterbethesubject matterofthegrievanceandarbitration Ms.JaniceHagan,Presidentofthelocalunion,testifiedthatsheregularlyrepresentedlocal membersinconnectionwiththeirgrievances,andthatshedidsointhiscase.Shewasawareofthe requirementinthefinalparagraphofArticle18.6.2.1tospecifyinthereferraltoarbitrationwhichpositions thegrievorwasclaiming.Inthegrievanceitself,theunionhadidentifiedfivepositionstowhichthegrievor -4 claimedarightofreassignment.Thecollectiveagreementalloweduptofoursuchpositionstobelistedin thereferraltoarbitration.WhenMs.HaganreferredthegrievancetoarbitrationonNovember30,20!1, however,shefailedtospecifyanypositionssoughtbythegrievor.Shetestifiedthatshewantedtoreview withthegrievorthefivepositionsmentionedinthegrievance,withaviewtoreducingthenumberofposi tionsclaimedbyher,possiblytolessthanthefourallowedbytheagreement,but,asofNovember30,she hadnotyetfoundatimeconvenienttoherselfandthegrievortodiscussthisquestion.Oneofthefiveposi tionsthathadbeenoriginallyidentifiedhadbeenexaminedattheStep3grievancemeeting,andit appearedthatitwasmoretechnicalthanthegrievorhadoriginallybelieved,soithadbeeneffectively excludedfromfurtherconsideration.Ms.Haganwasawarethatincumbentsofanypositionsidentifiedin suchreferralstoarbitrationweresonotified,andshewasreluctanttolistpositionsunlessagrievorwas seriouslyinterestedinthemsoasnottoalarmtheincumbentsunduly.Shealsofeltthatthechancesofa settlementpriortoarbitrationwouldbeimprovedbyfocusingonpositionswherethegrievorhadgenuine prospects. Accordingly,onDecember2,2011,Ms.HaganspoketoMs.KimMulroney,who,atthe time,wastheemployer'sInterimExecutiveDirector,HumanResourcesServices.Thiswasinatelephone conversationwheretheyreviewedvariousoutstandinggrievances.Ms.HaganinformedMs.Mulroneythat, althoughshehadreferredthisgrievancetoarbitration,shehadnotyetlistedthepositionsthegrievor intendedtoseekatarbitration.Bothofthemknewthatthereferraltoarbitrationhadtocontainthelist. Ms..HagancouldnotrememberexactlywhatshesaidtoMs.Mulroney,butshebelievedspecificmention wasmadeofArticle18.6.2.1.Ms.HaganrememberedMs.Mulroneyreplyingtoher"That'sfine",or"That's fine.Noproblem." -5 OnFebruary2,2012,Ms.HaganprovidedMs.Mulroneywithalistofthreepositionsthat thegrievorwouldbeclaiming. Ms.HagantestifiedthatthedeadlineforreferringthegrievancetoarbitrationwasDecem ber8,2011.InviewofMs.Mulroney'sreplyonDecember2,shewassatisfiedthattheemployerwouldnot takethepositionthatthereferraltoarbitrationwasdefective,andsoshedidnotfeellheneedtoperfectthe referraltoarbitrationbeforeDecember8.HadshenotfeltreassuredbyMs.Uulroney'sreply,shecould easilyhavemettheDecember8deadlinebyfilingwiththeemployernoticethatatarbitrationthegrievor wouldbelayingclaimtothefourpositionsthathadpreviouslybeenidentified. Ms.Haganaddedthattheunionandtheemployerregularlyaccommodatedeachotheras regardscompliancewithgrievancetimelimits,sometimesbyoralagreementstoextendthem,andsome times,afterthefact,byrefrainingfromobjectingtotimelimitshavingbeenmissed.Therewastherefore nothingunusual,inMs.Hagan'sview,inMs.Mulroneyverballyagreeingtooverlooktheunion'sfailureto specifythepositionsthatwouldbeatissueatarbitration. NotuntilafewdaysbeforethehearingdidMs.Haganlearnthattheemployerintendedto arguethatthearbitratorwaswithoutjurisdictionasaresultoftheunion'snon-compliancewithArticle !8.6.2.1. Ms.Haganwascross-examinedonheraccountofherdiscussion,withemployercounsel suggestingthatherrecollectionwasfaultyorthatshehadmisunderstoodwhatMs.Mulroneyhadtoldher. Ms.Hagan,however,didnotresilefromhertestimonyinchief. -6 EmployercounselannouncedatthehearingthatMs.Mulroneywasnolongeremployedby theemployer,andthathehadonlyhad"limitedaccess"toher.Hestatedthathewouldnotbecallingherto testify.Nootherwitnesswascalledtotestify. Ill Onbehalfoftheemployer,Mr.Michalukmaintainedthattheevidencedidnotdisclosea bindingagreementbetweenthepartiesallowingtheuniontoperfectitsreferraltoarbitrationatalaterdate. Inthefirstplace,therewasnoconsiderationforanysuchagreement.Inaddition,anyamendmenttothe collectiveagreementhadtobeinwriling,sincetheColle.qesCollectiveBargainingAct,S.O.2008,c.15, requiredagreementsthemselvestobeinwriting.Theemployer,however,despiteitsdoubtsaboutwhathad actuallytranspiredbetweenMs.HaganandMs.Mulroney,didnotchallengelheunion'sassertionthatthe twoofthemdidinfactreachsomeagreement,althoughtheemployerstillmaintainedthatitcouldnotbe inferredfromMs.Hagan'sevidencethattheemployerconsentedtothelatefilingofthelistofpositions. Mr.Michalukalsoarguedthattheunioncouldnotrelyonestoppelinsupportofitsposition sincetherewasnoevidenceofarepresentationbytheemployer,andsince,inanyevent,estoppelcould notclotheanarbitratorwithjurisdictionwherenoneexisted. Inthecourseofhissubmissions,Mr.MichalukreferredtoCanadoreColleqeofAppliedArts andTechnologyv.OntarioPublicServiceEmployeesUnion(RocheleauGrievance),[2012]O.LA.A.No. 132(Bendel),CentennialColleqeofAppliedArtsandTechnolo.qyv,OntarioPublicServiceEmployees Union,Local559(MiddletonGrievance),[2007]O.L.A.A.No.180(M.Picher),ReMohawkCollegeand OntarioPublicServiceEmployeesUnion(unreportedawardofarbitratorThome,datedMarch4,2003),Re -7 CambrianColleqeandOntarioPublicServiceEmployeesUnion(unreportedawardofarbitratorH.Brown, datedSeptember1t,2002),SaskatchewanRiverBunqalowsLtd.v.MarilimeLifeAssuranceCo.,[t994]2 S.C.R.490,andReMapleLeafConsumerFoodsInc.andSchneiderEmployees'Association(2007),160 L.A.C.(4t)173(E.Newman). Ms.Johnson,onbehalfoftheunion,arguedthatthepartieshadagreedonDecember2to relievetheunionfromthestrictrequirementsofArticle18.6.2.1providedtheunionsuppliedthedetailsof thepositionssoughtbythegrievoratsomelaterdate.Iftherewasanydoubtaboutthetermsoftheagree ment,accordingtoMs.Johnson,thearbitratorshoulddrawtheinferencethat,hadMs.Mulroneybeen calledtotestifyonbehalfoftheemployer,herevidencewouldnothavehelpedtheemployer'scase.This agreementwasenforceablebythearbitrator.Inthealternative,theemployerwasestoppedfrominsisting onstrictcompliancewithAdicle18.6.2.1.Ms.JohnsonreferredtoReMapleLeafConsumerFoods,suEE[, ReSt.ClairColleqeandOntarioPublicServiceEmployeesUnion(unreportedawardofarbitratorShime, datedJuly13,1992),FanshaweColleqev.OntarioPublicServiceEmployeesUnion,Localt10(D.G. HealthandSafetyGrievance),[2009]O.L.A.A.No.343(Knopf),andSt.Mary'sPaperInc.v.Communica tions,EnerqyandPaperworkersUnionofCanada,Locals47,67and133,[1993]O.L.A.A.No.937(Mikus), aswellastoBrown&Beatty,CanadianLabourArbitration(3r'edilion),atparagraphs2:2211,2:2220and 3:5t20. IV Althoughbothpartiesreferredintheirargumentstothequestionwhethertherewasan "enforceable"or"binding"agreementbetweenthepadiesconcerningtheprocessingofthisgrievanceand tothequestionwhethertheemployerwasestoppedfrominsistingonstrictcompliancewithAdicle18.6.2.1, -8 Iintendtoapproachthecasebysimplyinquiringwhethertheemployerwaivedcompliancewiththisprovi sion(apossibilityofwhichtherewasalsosomediscussionintheparties'submissions).Idonotunderstand whytheunionshouldhavetoprovelhattherewasaconlractonthispointbetweenlheparties,whenitcan achieveitsobjectivesonthispreliminaryobjectionthroughthelessonerousrouteofestablishingthatthere waswaiver.Inparticular,waiverdoesnotrequireconsideration:seeSaskatchewanRiverBungalows, su_.Provingestoppelisalsomoreonerousthanprovingwaiversincethelatterdoesnotrequireproofof detrimentalreliance:seePalmer&Snyder,CollectiveAqreementArbitrationinCanada(4thedition,2009), atpage87,wheretherelationshipbetweenthetwodoctrinesisdiscussed(footnotesomitted): Someoftheoldercasesusethelanguageofestoppeltoexplainwhyapartyisprecludedfrom raisingaproceduraldefectwhichitfailedtoraiseatthefirstopportunity.Arbitratorsnow,however, generallyacceptthat"detrimentalreliance"isnotrequiredwhenapartypleadsthattherehasbeen waiverofsuchadefect.Assuch,thereisnoadvantagetopleadingestoppelratherthanwaiver, withtheresultthatestoppelisrarelyinvokedinrelationtoproceduralirregularities. Ithereforeintendtoexaminethequestionwhethertheemp!oyerwaivedtimelycompliance withArticle18.6.2.1inthetelephoneconversationbetweenMs.MulroneyandMs.Hagan. Primafacie,itwouldappearthattheemployerexplicitlywaivedstrictcompliancewithArti cle18.6.2.1.DespiteMr.Michaluk'sargumenttothecontrary,theonlyrealisticconclusiontodrawfrom Ms.Hagan'stestimonyisthatMs.Mulroneyconsentedtothelatefilingbytheunionofthelistofpositions thatitwouldputinissueinthearbitration.WaiverwasdefinedinthefollowingtermsbyarbitratorArthursin ReInternationalLonqshoremen'sAssociation,Local1879,andHamiltonTerminalOperatorsLtd.(1966),17 L.A.C.181: -9 [W]aiverisalegalbarriertotheexerciseoftherightsinaparticularcase,erectedbytheconductor wordsoftheparties.Thereasontherightscannotbeexercisedisthatonepartyhasassuredthe otherthatitcanignorethetimelimits..,itwouldnowbeunconscionabletoallowtheretractionof thisassurancetothedetrimentoftheinnocentparty. Ms.Mulroney'sreplytoMs.Haganintheirtelephoneconversationcertainlyappearstocomewithinthe scopeofthisdefinitionofwaiver. Initssubmissions,however,theemployerhasalludedtotwoargumentsastowhywaiver isnotavailabletotheunioninthiscase. Thefirstargumentisthatwaiveramountstoanamendmentofthecollectiveagreement andthat,liketheagreementitself,ithastobeinwriting,whichwasnotthecasehere.Whilesomeolder awardssupporttheemployer'sargumentonthis(see,e.q.,ReStandardCoilProducts(1964),15L.A.C. 197(Lane)),arbitratorArthurs'awardinReHamiltonTerminalOperatorsLtd.,supra,whichrejectedthat argument,isnowconsideredauthoritativeonthepoint.ThisiswhatarbitratorArthurswrote: Finally,theunioncontendedthatanywaiverwouldconstituteanamendmentoftheagreement,and wouldthereforehavetobeinwritingaswastheagreementitself.Ifthiswereso,thewriting requirementwouldbefoundinthecorrespondencepassingbetweenthechairmanandthenomi nees.However,waiverdoesnotconstituteanamendmentoftheagreement:theagreement survivesthisproceedinginitsoriginalform,withtheprovisionsofart.5.01(g)asforcefulasthey everwere. Thesecondargumentisthat,sinceArticle18.6.2.1establishestheparametersofthearbi trator'sjurisdiction,compliancewithitcannotbewaived.Mr.Michalukhasreferredtothreeawardsdealing withthisprevisionofthecollectiveagreementinsupportofhisargumentaboutitsjurisdictionaland -10 mandatorycharacter,namelyReCanadoreColleqe,ReCentennialColleqeandReMohawkCollege, SU. InthefollowingpassagefromPalmer&Snyder,su_2,atpages85-6,itisexplainedthat certaindefectscannotbewaived,whileotherscanbe(footnotesomitted): Certaindefectscannotbewaivedandobjectionsconcerningthesecanbemadeatanytime.The reasonisthatjurisdictioncannotbeconferredonanarbitratorthroughaparty'sfailuretoobject promptly.Thecaseshavethusdistincluishedbetweenfundamentalissuesofjurisdictiontowhich waiverneverapplies,andirreqularitiesofformorproceduretowhichthedoctrineisapplicable. Failuretocomplywithmandatorytimelimitsinthecollectiveagreement;filingofagrievanceasa policyratherthananindividualgrievance;defectsinthegrievanceformitself;andfailuretoproceed throughallthespecifiedstepsofthegrievanceprocedurehavebeenheldtobeproceduralirregularities whichcanbewaived.Failuretoobject,priortothehearing,toadamageclaimformulatedin apolicygrievancehasalsobeenheldtoconstitutewaiveroftherighttoobject.Ontheotherhand,thefilingofthegrievancebytheunionratherthanthegriever;theexclusionofthegrievorsfromthe bargainingunit;thestatusofthegrieverasaprobationaryemployee;andtheexistenceofacollec tiveagreementhavebeenconsideredfundamentalissuesofjurisdiction.Ithasbeenheldthatthefailuretosubmitagrievanceinwriting,asrequiredbythecollectiveagreement,wasamatterof substance,andnotform,andsocouldnotbewaivedbyconduct.Oneshouldnotassumethata matterisfundamentalandthereforecannotbewaivedsimplybecausethecollectiveagreement setsoutaproceduretobefollowed. [emphasisadded] IshouldstatethatIhavenoquarrelwiththeconclusionsreachedinReCanadoreCollege, ReCentennialColleqeandReMohawkColleqe,su,whereitwasheldthatanarbitrationcannotbe allowedtoproceedunlesstheunionhasidentifiedinadvancethepositionssoughtbythegrieverHowever, totheextentthatthetwolatterawardsholdthat,sinceArticle18.6.2.1isa"mandatory"procedure,compli ancewithitcannotbewaived,tmustrespectfullydisagree.Iamsatisfiedthatwaivercanrelieveaparty from complying with mandatory procedures.This is what arbitrator Reville wrote on this question in one of theleadingcasesinthisarea,RePaqe-HerseyTubesLtd.(1963),14L.A.C.!06,atpage107: -11 Thereisawealthofauthoritytoestablishthatwhereamandatorygrievanceprocedureissetforth inacollectiveagreement,thegrievingpartymustfollowitmeticulously,unlesstheotherpartyhas waivedoneormoreoftherequirementssetforthinthatprocedure,andthatintheabsenceofsuch waiver,thegrievanceisnotarbitrableandthearbitratoristherebydebarredofjurisdictiontoenter tainit.[ReU.E.W.andCanadianRaybestosCo.Ltd.(1951),3LA.C.849;ReUnitedSteelworkers andR.D.WernerCo.Ltd.(t957),8L.A.C.45;ReU.A.W.andMassey-FerflusonCo.Ltd.(1959),9 L.A.C.269;ReTeamsters,Chauffeurs,Warehousemen&HelpersandOverlandExpressLtd.,July 20,1960,unreported(Fuller,C.C.J.,chairman). [emphasisadded] Indeed,waivercanonlybeoperativeinthecaseofmandatoryproceduressince,intheeventofabreachof directory(i.e.,non-mandatory)procedures,thequestionforthearbitratorisnotwhethertherehasbeen waiver,butwhetheritisreasonableforthearbitratortooverlooknon-compliance:see,e..,ReU.E.W., Local504,andCanadianWestinghouseCo.Ltd.(I963),t4LA.C.139(Laskin). AsstatedinthepassagequotedearlierfromPalmer&Snyder,thecriticaldistinctioninthis contextisthusbetween"fundamentalissuesofjurisdiction",ontheonehand,and"irregularitiesofformor procedure",ontheother.Asisobviousfromthispassage,notallissuesofjurisdictionarenecessarily "fundamental":totaketheprimeexample,failuretocomplywithmandatorytimelimits,intheabsenceof waiver,deprivesthearbitratorofjurisdiction(see,e,UnionCarbideCanadaLtd.v.Weiler,[1968]S.C.R. 966),butthetimelimitsdonotraisea"fundamental"jurisdictionalissue,withtheresultthat,ifthereis waiver,thearbitratorhasjurisdiction(see,e.&.,ReFalconbridqeNickelMinesLtd.andSudburyMine,Mill andSmelterWorkers'Union(1973),2LA.C.(2d)195(Rayner)). TheessentialquestionIthereforehavetodecideishowtocategorizetherequirementin Article18.6.2.1thatthepositionsclaimedbyagrievormustbeincludedinthereferraltoarbitration:isitso fundamentalthatcompliancewithitcannotbewaived,orisitmerelyanirregularityofformorprocedure? -12 Ithasbeenheldinnumerouscasesthatfailuretocomplywithmandatorytimelimitsinthe filingofagrievanceisthetypeofdefectthatcanbewaived:see,e.q.,UnionCarbideLtd.,su._,Re CanadianFoodWorkers,Local1105,andCanadaPackersLtd.(1970),21L.A.C.12(Weatherill),ReRainy RiverValleyHealthCareandOntarioNurses'Association(1985),20LA.C.(3d)331(Devlin),ReCanada PostCorporationandCanadianUnionofPostalWorkers(199t),22LA.C.(4th)430(T.Jolliffe),andReSt: ClairCollefleandOntarioPublicServiceEmployeesUnion(1997),65L.A.C.(4th)219(McLaren).inthe presentcase,thegrievanceitselfwassubmittedontimebutthelistofpositionsbeingclaimedbythegriever wasnotsubmitteduntilafterthetimelimithadexpired.Inmyview,ifthelatesubmissionofthegrievance itselfisadefectthatcanbewaived,thenafortiorithelatesubmissionofthelistofpositionsindisputemust alsobeadefectthalcanbewaived. Forallthesereasons,Ihavedecidedthattheemployer'spreliminaryobjectionmustbe dismissed.Thehearingwillresumeondatestobearranged. DATEDatThornhill,Ontario,this21stdayofSeptember2012. MichaelBendel, Arbitrator