Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-0104.Haddock and Campbell.81-03-09IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under The CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: George Haddock and Mark Campbell And Ministry of Transportation and Communications Before: S. Linden - Vice-Chairman 8. Lanigan - Member H. Weisbach - Member For the Grievor: ~, Mrs. L. Stevens, Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union For the Employer: Mr. N. Pettifor, Staff Relations Supervisor Ministry of Transportation and Communications Hearing: January 5, 1981 -2- The facts and circumstances of this case are similar to a number of others that are presently outstanding before the Board. Ten other grievors have circumstances similar to those of Mr. Haddock and seven others have circumstances similar to those of Mr. Campbell. It was agreed by the parties at the outset of the hearing that the decision of this Board will also apply to these other grievors. At the commencement of the hearing, the Board was presented with an Agreed Statement of Fact (Exhibit #I). In addition to the Agreed Statement of Fact the parties presented two additional facts that are relevant and that were also agreed upon. These are: 1. the grievors drove their own automobiles to travel to and from work and not Government automobiles; 2. the grievers were instructed to travel to and from headquarters to their job site within their eight hour shift. It was agreed that the grievors are not paid for travelling from their home to headquarters but that they are authorized to travel for the period of time specified in the Agreed Statement of Facts in paragraph (6) between their headquarters and their specified job location. I In the circumstances of this particular case one of the grievors travelled within his eight hour shift whereaS the other travelled outside his eight hour shit. The Union representative argued that both should have been paid for their travelling time pursuant to Article 23.5 of the Collective Agreement. The Ministry’s position is that neither travel time should be paid for additionally. The relevant section of the Collective Agreement is 23.5 and it states as follows: -3- , 23.5 “When an employee is required to travel on his regular day off or a holiday listed in Article 9 of the Employee Benefits Agreement, he shall be credited with a minimum of four (4) hours.” The grievors in this case, were scheduled to work on Christmas Day and Boxing Day 1979, and New Year’s Day 1980 as part of their regular shift schedule. The Collective Agreement provides’ premium pay for working on those statutory holidays. This is not an issue. The Union’s argument is that when an employee is required to travel on a holiday, then he must be, paid a minimum of four hours pursuant to Section 23.5. The Union representative argued that there is a clear distinction between working time and travelling time and that this distinction has been recognized in a number of earlier decisions of the Board. We have reviewed those earlier decisions which are all decisions where Mr. George Adams acted as Vice-Chairman and the cases are numbers 99178, 54178 and 71/78. While we agree with the conclusions reached by the Chairman in those cases, we feel that they are not authority for the position advanced by the Union representative in this case. We cannot place the interpretation on Article 23.5 of the Collective Agreement that the Union representative is asserting. Article 23 of the Collective Agreement must be read in its totality. Furthermore, it must be read in the general context of the whole Collective Agreement. It is clear to us from a reading of Article 23.5 in context that it does not bear the meaning advanced by the Union representative. If the parties had intended to provide a four hour premium benefit for travelling on a holiday, in addition to the holiday premium already provided for in the Collective Agreement, they would have done so in much clearer language. Article 23.5 of the Collective -4- Agreement must be read in the context of Article 23.1 which states that: “Employees shall be credited with all time spent in travelling outside of working hours when authorized by the Ministry.” Mr. Campbell, who travelled outside his regularly scheduled ho,“’ was clearly not authorized to do so and is therefore not covered by the provisions of Article 23. Mr. Haddock, who travelled within the time as he was authorized to do, was paid not only for the day’s work, but was also paid the premium pay provided for in the Collective Agreement. It would be stretching this agreement and Article 23.5 in particular beyond recognition to suggest that he should be paid an additional four hours for -travelling. Travel time which is authorized is more like a “wash-up” time at the beginning or end of a shift. Instead of working right up to the last minute of a shift, an employee may be authorized to leave the specified number of minutes earlier to account for the time that it takes to travel from the job site to headquarters. This is the same as if he or she were given a few minutes at the beginning or end of a shift to wash-up. Employees are.directed to take this time during their shift, and it is clear to us that the parties intended that they would be paid for .this time in the normal way, that is, in their normal pay schedule. Employees are paid additionally for travelling only when it occurs outside of ordinary working hours and then only when it is specifically authorized by the Ministry. (Article 23.1) That was not the situation in this case, and accordingly, the grievances herein are dismissed. -. -5- Dated at Toronto, this 9th day of March, 1981. “S. Linden” (Signature) S. Linden Vice-Chairman I Concur 8. Lanigan I Concur W. Weisbach Member IT -6- EXHIBIT 1 Ageed Stateement of Fact In the matter of a grievance before the Grievance Settlement Board between Messrs. G. Haddock, M. A. Campbell et al and the Crown in right of Ontario/Ministry of Transportation and Communications, the parties agree that: I) The matter is properly before the Board and the Board has jurisdiction to hear this matter. a 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) Messrs. Haddock and Campbell are employed by the Southwestern j Region of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. Mr. Haddock is employed by the Ministry during the summer months as a Highway Equipment Operator 3 on the Forestry Crew of the Chatham District and, at the material time of this grievance, he was assigned to snow-ploughing operations as a member of the staff of Patrol No. 20 in the Chatham District. Mr. Campbell was employed by the Ministry, at the material time of the grievance, during the summer months as a Highway Construction Inspector I, and during the winter months he was assigned to snow-ploughing operations as a member of the staff of Patrol No. 20 in the Chatham District. During the winter months, Mr. Haddock’s headquarters were designated as being the District Garage Complex located at 745, Richmond Street, Chatham, and Mr. Campbell’s head- quarters were designated as being the Chatham District Office located at 60 Keil Drive, Chatham. Their job location was the Kent Centre;Patrol Yard - Patrol #20 located on Highway No. 40 at a point 2200 feet South of the intersection of Highways Nos. 40 and 401. Mr. Haddock was authorized to travel for 18 minutes per day . and Mr. Campbell for 25 minutes, being the time required to travel from their respective designated headquarters to the job location. Messrs. Haddock and Campbell were employed on regularly- scheduled shifts at the material time (copy attached). On 25th and 26th December, 1979, and 1st January, 1980, Mr. Haddock was scheduled to work a total of eight hours. He travelled from his designated headquarters to the job location and back during his regularly scheduled hours of work. I 9) 10) -7- He received payment for these days in accordance with Article 19 of the then current Collective Agreement in respect of Working Conditions. He also claimed a credit of 4 hours in accordance with \ Article 23.5 of the same agreement, which was denied to him by the Ministry and is the subject of his grievance. On 25th and 26th,December, 1979, and 1st January, 1980, Mr. Campbell was scheduled to work a total of eight hours, which he did. He travelled from his designated headquarters to the job location and back outside of his regularly scheduled hours of work. He received payment for these days in accordance with Article 19 of the then current Collective Agreement in respect of Working Conditions. He also claimed a-credit of 4 hours in accordance with Article 23.5 of the same agreement which was denied to him by the Ministry and is the subject of his grievance. 10 other grievors worked and travelled under circumstances similar to those of Mr. Haddock and 7 other grievers worked and travelled under circumstances similar to those of _ Mr. Campbell. It is agreed that the decision of the Board will also apply to these grievers.