HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-0736.Hudy.84-07-25ONT..RIO
CROWN EMPLOYEES
GRIEVANCE - - !SES;bEMENT
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
'Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between: QPSEU (May Hudy)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of .Tourism and Recreation)
Before:
For the Grievor:
For the Employer:
Hearing: June 20, 1984
Employer
M. Teplitsky, Q.C. Vice Chairman
P.H. Coupey Member
F.D. Collom Member
K. Waisglass
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
R.B. Itenson
Senior Staff Relations Officer
Staff Relations Division
Civil Service Commission
-I g
-2-
_ - DECISION
This grievance results from the failure of Confederation
Life, the carrier of the Term Disability Plan, to accept
the grievor into the Plan. 'The policy of insurance which
has been extant since its inception in 1971, provides that
a person such as the grievor.who originally opted out of
the Plan, must now provide satisfactory proof of insurability
prior to her entry into the Plan. The insurer has not accept-
ed the evidence thus far provided and this grievance has
resulted.
Ms. Waisglass puts the grievor's case on two bases.
First, she submits that pursuant to the Collective Agree-
ment, the employer is obligated to provide coverage to each
employee. Second, she alleges that based on the terms of
the policy of insurance the grievor is entitled to be in-
cluded within the group.
In my respectful opinion, the first contention must
fail. Article' 41 of the Collective Agreement provides:
"ARTICLE 41 -- LONG TERM INCOME PROTECTION
41.1 The Employer shall pay eighty-five percent cB5%)
of the monthly premium of the Long Term Income
Protection Plan."
It is clear on all of the evidence that the Long Term
Income Protection Plan referred to in Article 41.1 is the
Confederation Life Policy which came into effect on February
1, 1981 prior to the negotiation of the current Collective
Agreement. The parties knew that that was the policy at
the time they negotiated this Collective Agreement and they
knew its terms.
-3-
In addition, the Joint Insurance Benefits Review
Committee, a bi-partisan committee, originally had selected
the carrier and had approved the terms of the policy.
I note as well in Exhibit 3 that at the time the
grievor opted out, she had signed an acknowledgement re-
cognizing that "my future acceptability in the plan will
be subject to evidence of insurability".
In these circumstances, it is not possible to main-
tain that the employer had promised to provide coverage
for each employee regardless of the insurability of such
employee. The employer has indeed provided,the policy
of insurance the Union bargained for and the first contention
of the Union must, therefore, fail.
As to the Union's second contention, this is a matter
as between the grievor and the insurer. In my respectful
opinion, the grievor h8s status to maintain an action in
the court system for a declaration that she must be in-
cluded within the group. If that action fails because
it is found that the grievor has no status, then this
Board should reconsider the grievor's position and for
such purpose the Board will remain seized.
I would also direct the employer to co-operate with
the grievor in attempting to persuade the insurer to
resolve her claim as expeditiously and inexpensively as
possible.
-4-
DATED this 25th day of July, 1984. 1
Vice Chairman
/
F.D. Collom, Member
P.H. Coupey, Member