HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-0136.Blake.82-07-30.IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between:
For the Griever:
For the Employer:
Hearing:
Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1587
(Elton Blake).
and
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Toronto Area Transit Operating
Authority)
Griever
Employer
J.F.W. Weatheriil Chairman
I. Thomson ,Member
K. Preston [Member
E.G. Pow-i, Counsel
Barristers & Solicitor
E.T. McDermott, Counsel
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt
July 2, 1982
-2-
In this grievance, dated February 5, 1982, the
union grieves "as a matter of policy" certain alleged
changes said to have been implemented by the employer
with respect to free transportation for employees.
It is alleged that such changes were in violation
of art~icle 34 of the collective agreement. That article
is as follows:
Article 34 - Free Transportation
34.1 The Employer agrees to maintain
its current practices relative to
providing free transportation on GO
Transit vehicles for the duration of
this agreement.
The evidence before us establishes that the "current
practices" relative to free transportation were that
employees were entitled to free transportation on the
system at all times, subject to their showing an iden-
tification card, and subject to preference for available
transportation given to paying passengers. As well,
employees were asked to comment on the level of,service
provided, and required to report accidents or acts of
vandalism.
These matters were set out in a document entitled
"Conditions for Issuance of GO Transit Pass", signed
by employees to whom a pass was issued. Those conditions
were as follows:
,. ’ :
-3 -
: .
CONDITIONS FOR ISSUANCE OF GO TRANSIT PASS
1. The pass shall only be used by the person
in whose name it is issued.
2. The pass may be used at all times during
the term of employment. Employees will
be asked to comment on the level of ser-
vice provided and to suggest where im-
provements could be made.
3. A written report must be forwarded to the
Director of Operations within 48 hours
whenever any occurrence, accident or act
of vandalism is observed.
4. Lost or stolen passes must be reported
immediately to the Chief Accountant.
5. Any abuse of the above mentioned condi-
tions shall bear the penalty:
i) for the first offence - suspension
without pay for seven (7) days:
ii) for the second offence - termination
of employment.
6. The pass also serves as an employee iden-
tification card.
In January, 1982, the employer replaced- the transit
pass with a small, wallet-sized card, bearing the photo-
graph of the employee and known as a "photo identifica-
tion system access card". Certain regulations were
issued along with the new cards, including one to the
effect that misuse of the cards or failure to comply
with the regulations "can result in suspension or
termination of employment". As well, it appears that
the employerhad indicated it would require a payment
for a renewal card. These new regulations were protested
by the union and they were amended. The requirement
of payment for a renewal card was dropped. The amended
regulations, issued in March, 1982, were as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The card shall only be used for the purpose
of providing identification and access to the
GO Transit system, by the person whose name
and picture 'appears on the card.
The card must be worn in a visible location
at all times while on duty in public areas
of the system and at other GO Transit
facilities away from the normal work location.
Mislaid or forgotten card must be reported
immediately to your supervisor who will
arrange for a temporary card for the remain-
der of the shift.
Lost or stolen card must be reported to the
supervisor and Fersonnel Department immedi-
ately. The:Personnel Department will arrange
to issue a new replacement Photo Identifi-
cation System Access Card.
An employee who witnesses an accident or act
of vandalism while on duty is required to
forward a, written report to the Administra-
tion & Claims Officer, Head Office.
An employee using the GO System while on
duty is obliged to relinquish his/her seat
to a paying customer.
Misuse and/or failure to comply with condi- tions detailed above can result in disciplinary
action.
An employee who rides the GO System is asked to
forward his/her observations to the Director,
Commuter Operations & Equipment on the level
of service provided, crew deportment, equip-
ment cleanliness, accidents, act of vandalism and any other item which is detrimental to
the image of GO Transit.
I acknowledge that my card must be returned to my supervisor before the release of my final
payroll cheque.
-5-
The revised regulations were still regarded by
the union as changing the free-transportation practice.
Item 2 appears to have been particularly in contention.
In the course of the grievance procedure, the union
President wrote the Managing Director to say that if
item 2 were withdrawn, the matter would be "finalized".
Such a proposal does not limit the scope of the grievance
already filed, and the union is entitled to protest
other aspects of the regulations in these proceedings.
In fact, only items 1, 2 and 7 are in contention. _
As to item 7, that appears to replace item 5
of the previous conditions; Neither can be said to
be a "practice" so much as a policy enunciated by
the employer for abuse of the free-transportation
practice. Of course, any such abuses might, in a
proper case, be grounds for discipline. The new
regulations appear to be-somewhat less rigorous than
the previous ones, but in any event, they do not have
the status of collective agreement provisions and are
not binding on the union or the employees, nor on this
board. Disciplinary actions, if grieved, would still
have to meet the just-cause test. Item 7 does not
have any substantial effect on the matter of free
transportation itself.
Items 1 and 2, which may be considered together,
-6-
:
could be read, perhaps, as limiting the right of free
transportation, and of imposing a requirement of wearing
a photographic identity card at all times. Such a
limitation and, in some circumstances, such a require-
ment, might indeed constitute breaches of article 34 of
the collective agreement.
The evidence satisfies us that such a limitation
was not intended and has not been put into effect.
Further, the requirement of wearing the photographic
identity card is restricted to public areas, or to situa-
tions in which identification of employees is appropriate.
hployeeswho are not on duty need not wear the cards,
and employees who are on duty need wear them only in
certain cirucmstances. That employees who are on duty
may be required to wear identification cards is not a
matter relating, in any but the most incidental way,
to the matter of free transportation.
What appears to have happened is that the transit
pass formerly issued hasbeen replaced by the access
card which serves not only as a pass, but as an identi- *
fication card for purposes not directly related to
transportation. As long as it is recognized that the
other functions which the new card may fill do not
in fact impinge on those more limited functions served
by the transit pass, then there will have been no‘
i
- 7 -
:
violation of the collective agreement.
We deal, in the instant case, only with the question
of alleged violation of article 34. While we find that
there has been no violation of that article by the mere
fact of the issuing of the access passes and the reyu-
lations relating to their use, we do not consider that
this arbitration has been "won" or "lost" by either
party. The evidence, in our view, has clarified the
purposes of the new card, and the effect of the reyula-.
tions. There can, under the collective agreement, be
no valid limitation of the practices relative to free
transportation, and this board so declares. The propriety
of the non-transportation uses of the card is not before
us.
DATED AT TORONTO, this -?J:.:: ~'I
!); r.:
day of 'i,&&'i , 1982.
4
3.F.V. Weatherill Chairman
VI. Thomson Xember
K. Preston Member