HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-0138.Orr.85-02-19I38/84, I39/Y4
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE ‘BARGAINING ACT
Ikfore
THE GGIEVANCE SET’TLEMENT BOARD
Between:
Before:
For the Grievor:
For the Employer:
Hearings:
OPSEU (Patricia Orr)
and
The Crown jn Right of Ontario
(&k&try of Health)
P. M. Draper Vice-Chairtnan
R. Russell Member
K. Preston Member
1. Roland, Counsel
Cowling & Henderson
Barristers & Solicitors
D. Brown, Q.C., Law Officer
Crown Law Office Civil
Minktry of the Attorney General
July 25, 1984 and October IO, 1984
Grirvor
Employer
i
-2-
There are two .gt-ievances before us, in each of which the Griever,
Patricia Orr, grieves that she ‘has wrongfully’ been denied, leave with pay for
absences due to sickness on certain dates in October, 1983.
It b conceded on behalf oft the Griever that the sel:l,nd.grievalll~e, to do
with an absence on October 3.1, is out of time under the collective agreement.
Counsel to the Griever argues that
(1) The first grievance, to do with two periods of absence of two and five days
respectively in October, is not OlJt of time under the collective agreement.
(2) The t3oard has jurisdiction’ under Section 55 of the Crown Employees
Collective Bargaining Act to characterize failure to meet the time limits in the
grievance procedure as a technical irregularity.
(3) Notwithstanding that a grievance is out of time under., the grievance
procedure, it is arbitrable under Section’19 (1) of the Crow’n Employees Co!lective
8ar~aining Act.
Sections~ 18, I9 and 55 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining
Act and Article 27 - Grievance Procedure of the collective agreement are -
appended hereto.
To deal first witlr the argument respecting Section 55, we are sdtisficd
of the correctness of the I\oard’s decision in Isaac and MaeIsaac, 742/X3 and 24/X4
inwhich Scytion 55 was considered and it was held tlrat “we do not consider tlrat
we derive jurisdiction to relieve against the time limits of the grievam:e procedure
irom that section.”
Turning to the issue of the tirnelir\ess of the first grievance, the
evidence discloses that the Griever is employed as a Psychiatric Nursing Assistant
2 at the Kingston Psychiatric, Hospital. She is Chief Steward of OPSEU Local 515.
The local has approximately 600 members and the Grievor has 29 stewards under
her supervision. She submitted two medical certificates, signed,by Dr. .J. D. Gibson
and dated October 28, each of which stated that she had been under medical care
from a stated date and was able to return to work on a stated date. On October 31
the certifi.cat&s were rejected by E. ~A. Taylor, Directot of Nursing, on the ground
that they did not indicate that the Griever was unable to attend to her duties
during the periods in question due to sickness. The Grievor was given until
November 2 to s&mit satisfactory certificates. She telephoned Dr. Gibson to
arrange an appointment and to tell him that the certificates had been rejected. His
response was that they were “O.K.“. When she saw Dr. Gibson on November I I she
had the certificates with her and he again said that they were all right and that she
should resubmit them. He volunteered to telephone tire hospital .about the
certificates and she gave him the name of E. Sleeth, Staffing Coordinator. He told
Sleeth that when a date of return to work was given it meant that the patient was
unable to work until that date and that the certificates would be resubmitted by the
Crievor. Dr. Gibson also gave the Grievor a new certificate stating that “Mrs.
Orr’s nerves are in such a state at present that I have recommended to her that she
not work for three weeks.” All three certificates were taken by tire Griever to
Sleeth. On November 1, 3. H. Fawcett, OPSEU Regional Staff Kepresentative, had
written to Taylor at the Gricvor’s request stating, in effect, that the two
certificates in dispute should be accepted and recommending that the Crievor be
paid fa the two periods of absence. On Novetnber 4 Taylor~ replied to Fawcett
taking the position, as we understand it, that the certificates had been rejected as
being certificates that did not establish the Grievor’s. inability to attend to Iter
duties during the periods in question, and tllat certificates that verified fitness’ to
return to work had not entered into the matter. On tile same date, Taylor wrote to
the Grievor notifying her of a meeting to be held on November 10 to discuss her
attendance, at which a union representative would be “welcome to attend.” The
Griever had been under a mandatory medical certificate requirement for one year,
which ended on some date in October, 1983 which wasp not given to us. The’ Grievor
did not appear for the meeting becauscshe thought, although she did not check it
out, that Taylor was not at work on that date. On November 14 Taylor wrote to
the Crievor reviewing her attendance record for 1983 and informing her that he
was recommending that she be dismissed for excessive absenteeism. On November
28, Fawcett wrote to Taylor at the Crievor’s request communicating her complaint
that she w,as being “pestered” while absent frown work due to sickness. About mid-
December the Crievor raised the question of the certificates with S. Asselstine,
Kegional Personnel Administrator. He referred her to Sleeth who, in turn, referred
her to Taylor. She “could not reach” Taylor. Early in January, 1984 she again
spoke~to Asselstine who said he thought she had no recourse but to grieve. The
Crievor filed a grievance dated January 21 which was denied on January 27. She
-5-
had dealt with Taylor about absences in the past and knew that only he could make
decisions regarding medical certificates. She also knew that Asselstinc could not
extend time litnits. She is familiar with the collective agreement and the
grievance procedure.
It is to be noted that we are concerned here witlt the timeliness and not
with the merits of the grievance. Consequently, the question whether or not ‘the
medical certificates under discussion ,were valid (or even required) is not our
concern. In effect, we are .aslted to find that the filing of the grievance was
delayed, Mt through any fault of,the Crievor, but because of some failure or
omission on the part of the Employer, and that the grievance is therefore timely.
Once the certificates were rejected by Taylor on October 31 it becarne
the responsibility of the Grievor to pursue the matter with the Employer unless, of
course, she chose to abandon her claim. Her reliance on Dr. Gibson was misplaced.
Her recourse was to file a formal grievance and argue for the acceptance of the
certificates, that is, to test the rejection through the grievance procedure (or
perhaps to argue that she was not required to produce them). The Employer was
not obligated to reconsider its rejection of the certificates and the Crievor was
given no reason to believe that that would be done.. The Employer’s silence
required the Grievor to take the next step. See Conky, Evidence and Procedure in
Canadian Labour Arbitration at p. 79. The Crievor’s discussions ‘with Sleeth and
Asselstinc in no way excuse her delay in proceeding. She was clearly relniss in not
confronting Taylor, who had given the Etnployer’s initial response and with whom
she must have kruwn she had to deal, while there was still time under the
-6-
grieiance procedure. No request was made by fhe .Crievor for an extension of the
time limits and it is not suggested that the Employer waived colnpliancc with
them.
In &her circumstances we would sympathize with the Griever’s
apparent indecision. But she is ~a knowledgeable union official of ~considerable
experience, fully conversant with the grievance procedure and with advice
available to her from OPSEIJ. There is no explanation for her inattention to the
advancement of her claitin that would justify a finding that despite the delay in its
filing, the grievance is nonetheless timely. We find that the first grievance is out
of tilne.
We turn now to the issue respecting Section IV (1) of the Crown
Employees Collective Bargaining Act.
The submission of counsel to the Grievor is that the section guarantees
the arbitrability of substantive rights conferred by the collective agreement in this
case the right to sick pay; that the section gives the Board jurisdiction to hear any
unresolved .differehce between the parties arising from tlje collective agreement
and that the parties cannot contract out of the section by including, as they have,
mandatory tilne lilnits in the grievance procedure.
‘Y
Counsel to the Employer submits that the grievance, because of its
subject-matter, does not fall under Section 18 (2) of the Act; that there is no
conflict’between’ the collective agreement and the section that lnust be resolved in
favour of the statutory provision; and that the time lilnits in the grievance
procedure do not exclude frown arbitration the substalrtive right asserted here or
bar the procedural right to grieve.
In our opinion, a clear distiIKtion exists between tile purpose of Section
I8 (2) and that of Section 19 (I). Section 18 (2) ensures that notwithstanding any
provisions for grievance settIe:lnent contained in a collective agreement, an
employee claim of the kind described in the section {nay be made the subject of a
grievance and processed to arbitration. The “in’ addition” right is that of
unqualified access to that grievance procedure and to arbitration by the Board. It
does not supersede the “other rights of grievance” in.the collective agreement but
is a new right independent of them. The section has been found by both the Board
and the Divisional Court to confer d right that cannot be denied by any provision of
the collective agreement (see Keeling, 45/78).
Section 19 (1) may be invoked for arbitration of an employee claim
brought under Section 18 (2)., It is significant that the claim Imust first have been
grieved. The section also ensures, and this is our concern here., that collective
agreements will contain provisions for final determination of differences between
the parties arising from the collective agreement. To the extent that a collective
agreement doesnot so provide, the section becomes operative. For example, the :
coU&tive agreement, while it provides for the hearing of grievances by the Board,
dces not provide that the decision of the Board is final and binding; the section
does. But that is not to say. that the section ousts the provisions of the collective
agreement for the scttlemellt of differences. The words “in the event the parties
arc unable to effect a settlelnent of any difference” contelnplate that efforts to
-8
settle will have been made by~the parties before recourse is had to arbitration. It
is reasonable to conclude tlrat this is to be done tlsough the grievanm procedure
the parties thetnselves have designed. It follows, of course, that access to tire
settlelnent process cannot be barred. But apart from that essential condition, the
parties rnust take the grievance procedure as they find it. We see no exelnptiun in
the section from compliance witlr the requirements, including the time limits, of
the grievance procedure.
It is generally laccepted that in collective bargaining regimes
differences are not arbitrable unless the grievance procedure has first been
followed. See Hrown and Reatty, Canadian Labour Arbitration, Second Edition, at
p. IO; Palmer, Collective Agreement Arbitration in Canada, Second Edition, at p.
221;~ Gorsky, Evidence and. Procedure in Canadian Labour Arbitration at p. 57.
Realistically, there. must be a mutually-agreed ‘method for the resolution of
differences slxxt of arbitration. bne may question that arbitration, a*
adjudicative process, would command the acceptance it does if it did not follow
upon the opportunity and alternative for settletnent of differences by negotiation.
Time limits are an essential element of any such process. See Gorsky, op. ‘cit., at
p. 48. In the present instance, unless they can be said to offend against Section 19
(I), they must stand.,
The time limits under discussion do not provide tlrat certain matters
may not be the subject of arbitration. Section 19 (I) would render any such
provision void. If they may at all be~said to bar access to arbitration it is only
insofar as they impose, in Article 27;11, a restriction that is condiiionally
applicable. We note the distinction between a provision that is conditionally
-9-
applicable and one that,is absolutely applicable made by the Court of Appeal in k
Ontario Hydro and Ontario Hydro Employees’ Union, Local 1000, et al, 147 D;L.R.
(3d) 210. It is’to be noted, as well, that Article 27.13 provides for the extension of
time limits.
Parenthetically, we note that the Act does not tie its prohib)tiun’ of
strikes to the existence of a collective agreement. Thus the concept of arbitration
as a quid pro quo for the reinoval of the right tu strike while a col,lective
agreement is in operation is not apposite.
Arbitration is an intervention in their affairs that represents the failure
of the Parties to resolve a difference by their own rrieans and makes them litigants
in a quasi-judicial proceeding. For that reason, among others, mature parties to
collective bargaining wish to avoid arbitration. Nevertheless, arbitration does
serve an essential purpose and if the parties may be assumed to recognize their
interest in bringing unresolved differences to final determination, the perception of
time limits as an attelnpt to contract out of the statutory‘mandate becomes highly
improbable.
We have, concluded that
(1) The substantive right conferred by the collective agreement and asserted here
has not been removed or rendered unenforceable by the provisions of the grievance
procedure.
.
- IO-
(2) The inclusion of time litnits in tlr gricvLil,ce procedure does not~contravene
Section IS, (1) of the Crown Etnployecs Collective I\argaining Acl, and tl~at section
m&y not be invoked where they have not btttlcl met.
In the result, we find that, the grievances being out of tilne, we do not
have jurisdiction to entertain them and these proceedings are accordingly
terminated.
DATE11 at Consccon, Ont.wio this 19tli day of February, 1985.
P. M. Draper, Vice-Chairman
R. Russell, Member
K. Preston, Member
12 Chap 1011 CROWN EMPI.~YF.ES COLLEC~‘,VE BARD. Sec. 16 (2)
.
mtrtually agreed upon by tbe’ernployee and tLer::,i!oyei: orga-
nization and faifihg wch agreemcnl then to such charitable
: ;,:~ rw. organization regist@red a5 such undclr Part I of the Inrosre
Tax~Acf (Caneda) as may bc designated by the Tribunal.
!$;kr& (3) No collective agreement shall corrtain a provisiorr which
Or&dIc.D rnom 10 - would rrqtiire, as a condition of eoiploymenl. membership
WO~MUI m the employee organization. 1972, c. 67. s. 15.
~tlrn;” l?.-(f) If ;I collective atwwncnt does not provide for its.
wmsnmw Iurn al operalion, or provides for its operation for iw uu-
specified term, ii shall be deemed to provide for a term 01 two
ycan. 1972. c. 67, s. 16 (1).
K$y&$,$ (2) If the pnrtics fail to ;agree on the tarm of a collcclive
mrm or
LeroemenL
agreement, the board shall determine its term of ofrwtion.
1971, c. 135. 5. 8.
Elll larm{na‘lo. (3) A collective agrwrnent shall not be turmioatcd by the
0rcoII~c~~~~ parties br!fore it ceasrs~to operate in accordance with its provi- *~rwme”m sions or this Act without the consent ol Ow Tribunal on the
joint qqliration of the p;lrtics. 1972, c. 67, s. 16 (3).
w. F”nerla”.or empbyel 1 n.-(l) Every collcrlioe agrcemcot shall bc dccnwd to
provide that it is the exclusive function of the crr~ploycr to
punag& which function, without limiting the geocrality of
the foregoing, includes the rigbt.to determine.
(a] employment, a~~f~ointment:complement. organi-
zation. assignment, discipline, dismissal. .susprn~ion.
work methods and procedures. kinds and locations
of equipment and classification of positions; and
.
(b) merit system. training and development, ?ppraisaf
and qxrannuation, the governing principles of
which are subject to review by the employer with
the hargnining agent.
and such matters will not hc the subjrct of rolfccti~c: hargain-
iog nor cdmc within the jurialiction of a board.
o,,av*nca. (2) In additioo IO any other rights of ~gricwnce under a
collect& agrcemcnt. an employee claiming.
(a) that his position has been impropcrlg classified’:
(b) that he has brm appraiwd contrary to the &‘cr
ning principfcs and standards; or
(c) thal he has b&n disriplincd or diwnisscd or SUS-
‘penclcd from his cwploymcnt wiltlout just cause.
I
Sec. 19 (5) CROWN EM,‘,.LWEES co I.,, Y.C:I’I”E BARG. Chap. IOH I.5
may process such matter in accordance with the fgievance
prow~ure providccl in tbc collertive agreement, and Iailing
final determination under such pro~cdurc, the matter may be
processecl in accordance with the procedure IIN i~nal d~!t~!r-
mination applicahlc uoller scctirm IO. 1974, c. 1.15, s. 9, pm?.
I f>.-(j) F;vrry rollctlivc a~rccmunt shall I,e ~Iwm~~l lo $t/kEkE
provide that in the went the parties arc, ~~nahl~~ 10 <!flNt ;$&,,
a settlement of any difh:renccS hctwcen them arising from
the interpretation, application, administration or alleg~~~l
contravention of the agreement. including any question a5
to whether a matter is arbitrablr, such matter may be refw
red for arbitration to the Grievance Settlement Board and
the Board alter giving full opportunity to th: part6 to
present their evidence and to make their submissions. shaff
decide the matter and its decision is final and binding upon
the part& and the employees covered by~the agreement.
(2) The Grievance Settlement Board has the same powersPow””
as a board of arbitration under subsections I1 (I I) and (12).
(3) Where the Grievance Settlement Board determine5 that gg:i’y
a disciplinary penalty or dismissal of an employee i.5 e,xcr+ve, ;$;$;ti,
it inay substitute such other penalty for the dlsc@ne or 0”
dismissal as it considers just and reasonable in all the cir-
cumstances. 1974. c. 135. s. 9. pad.
(4) Where, in exercising’ its authority under euhsectioo t3), $;&
the Grievance Settlement Board finds that an employee who v~howortr
works in a facility, s I” a ,..i\kY
‘(a) has applied force to a~ resident in the facility,
except the minimum force necessary for self-defence
or the defence of another person or necessary to
restrain the resident; or
(b) has sexually molested a resident in the facility.
the Grievance Settlement Board shall not piovide for the
employment of the employee in a position that invol\ler
direct responsibility for or that provides an opportumty
for contact.with residents in a facility,, but the Board may
provide for the employment of the employee in another
substantially equivalent position.
(0) “facilit’y” means,
14 Chap. 108 CROWN EMI’LOYEES C~I.I.EC~IVE BARE.. ,Sec. 19 (5)
(ii) a farility under the I)c~~clopmrnlol Scruircs
Art,
(iii) The Ontwio School for the Deaf, The Ontario
School for the Hlind or a school for the deaf
or a school for the blind continued or estab-
lished under section 12 of the Edurolion
40,
(iv) a psychiatric facility under the Menrul flcolfh
Act,
(v) a correctional inslilutinn ohdct the Mlinis-
try of Corrcrlionol Seruicer Act,
(vi) an observation and detention home under
the Pruvinrial Cowlr Act, or
(b) “resident” ,ntmm a pcJs”n who is an innlate,
patient, pupil or rcsidcnt in or is detained or cared
for in a facility. 1978. c. 79, 5. I.
(6) Where a party or an employee has failed to comply
with any of the terms ol the decision of the Gricvancc Scttle-
nwnt Roard. any party or employee affected by the decision
way, after the expiration of Jourteen days from the date of
the release of the decision or the date provided in the decision
for compliance, whichever is later, file in the ofice of the
Registrar of the Supreme Court a copy of the decision,
exclosivr of the reasons therefor, whereupon the decision shall
hc entered in the same way as a judgment or ordei of that
court and is enforcmhle as wch. 1974. c. 135, 5. 9, garf.
Compnal‘lo” a,“rls”.ncs ‘,‘().-(I) There shall he a Grievance Sclflcmcnt Board
iE~m*n’ composed of a’chairman. one or more vice-cllairmcn and an
equal nur~&r. that shall he determined hy the Lieutenant
Governor in Council, of members represent~ing the employees
that are represented by a bargaining agent and members
representing tile employer.
(2) The Licwtcnnnt Governor in Council sh;rll appoint.
for a term of not more than two years and may rcnppoint
for on,’ or “lore suhsequcnt lrrr”~ of ““1 “1WL Iha” two
years each. tile chairman and the vice-chairman or virr-
c)~airmcil after rcqw5ling and ronsidcring the views. if any.
01 each bargaining agent.
34~ Chap. 108 CROiVN EMI’I.OYEES COI.I.ECTIVE BARG. Sec. 54 (6)
whom ttre applicatioti relates uotil the Tribooal has disposed
of the application and has declared which ,~tmpltiycc org;\n-
iaation, if. any, has the rights to bargain WII)I the crriployer
on behalf of the emp)oyces concerned in the apfkatinn.
FUt-S.lbU
*!z%
(7) A declaration made hy the ~Trihunal under stib-
L&It4 section (2) has the same effect es lhe,granting of reprcsenta-
tion rights under subsection 4 (Z), except as provided in subsection
(5) of this section. 1974, c. 135, s. 19, pa??.
Etl- 66. No proceedings under this Act are invalid hy reason of
tmadl~l any defect of form or any technical irregularity and no such
‘~‘y’u’u~~ proceedings shall be quashed or set aside if no substantial wrong
or miscarriage of justice has occurred. 1972. c. 67, s. Xl.
R.&CUU1‘t*lNl. 56. The Lieutenant Governor in Council may malie
regulations,
(a) designating the body to represent any agency of
111~ Crown for the purpose of whscction I (2);
(b) prescribing the form-and content of a statement
of incotie and expenditure of an employee orgal
nization;
(c) designaiing,
(i) units of employees that are ~ppropriale
bargaining units for collective hargaining
purposes under this Act, and
(ii) designating the employee organization that
shall have representation rights in relation LO
each of such, bargaining units,
upon the day this Act comes into force, being tie 29th
day of December, 1972;
(d) prcscrihing forms and providing for their use. 1972,
c. 67, 5. 51; 1974, c. 1.15, s 20.
MO”“Y, 57. The moneys required hy the Crown for the purposes .;~;;I$ of this Act shall he paid oul of the moneys appropriated therefor hy
the Legislature. 1972, c. ‘67, s. 52, raised.
Ii; -
25.2 Where an employes has been releasud ,,I accordance
w,lh Arlicle 24 (Job Securily) end rehared wllhm two I?)
years. the perod of absence shall not be computed I”
defermining the length 01 continuous se,vice. Howeve,.
periods 01 con,;nua”~ servke before and alter B”Ch
absence shall be considered conlinuous and are included
in.delo,mmmg lhe length 01 conlinuous selvice.
25,3 Conhnuous serving shall be deemed IO have lsrminaled
il:
(a) an employee resigns 0, relires: 0,
(b, an employee is dismrxed unless such dlsmfssal
is mversod lhrough the grievance procedure; 0,
(c) an employee is absent without leave in excess
0, ,a” ,lO) C”“SBC”ll”C wOh,Q day& 0,
id) Bn employee is wlcmed in accordance wilh AC
tide 24 (Job Securily) and rematns released lo,
more Iha” ,wo (2) years.
, ARTICLE X-CLOSING OF FACILITIES
26.1 In IhO avenl that il is necessary to permanenlly shut down
an inslilulion. a building. an operation o, any other lacilily
at any localion, fhe employees mvolved at Ihe iacilily in
queslion shall ,ece,ve as much advance notice as possi-
ble. but in any case shall be notilied 01 the immmenl
~closure not later than ninely (90) days in advance 01 the
proposed shul-down.
26~2 Where Ihs CbSinQ Ot a kiCilil~ may ,esUll in SWph‘S
.?“ployeCS Or where a ,COIQWliZ~llOl, EdIS in a SUlpk,S
01 twenty (20) employees or more in a localion. a com-
millee shall be bxmed by the parties 10 provide lor con-
sullation and co.ope,alion in order 10 minimize the
adverse eflects upon employees who have been iden-
hlied as s”,pl”s ID requiremsnls.
26.3 The Union may be represenled by up to lhree (3)
employses al .,he localion involved and the mi”,s,ry
agrees lo gram leave with no 105s 01 pay and wilh no loss
01 credils ID attend commil!ee meslin9s.
30
ARTICLE ?I-GRIEVANCE PROCEDUX
27.1 II is Iho inlenl 01 lha Agr6ament edlust es quickly 80
posslblo any coinplainls 0, dtlk?,ences between the pa,.
ties arising from lhe interprolallon. spplicallon. 8d.
minisl~alion or alleged cmlravenlron 01 this Agmemenl.
including any queslion as 10 whether B melter is
arbttrable.
27.2,l An employwe who believes he has a complaint 0, a dil-
lsrencs shall Ii,4 discuss lh8 complain1 0, dtllorence with
his supervisor wilhin twenty (20) days 01 fllsl hocaminQ
aware o, tno complain, cr, ditlersncs.
27.2.2 II any comptainl o, ddlerence is nal sal~slaclorily seltlod
by the supervisorwilhin seven (7) dnrj ol Ihe discussion.
il may be processed wilhin an addtlional len 110) days
in the lollowing manner:
27 3
STAGE ONE
.I The employee may llle a grievance 111 WrWnQ with ha
suparvisor. The supervise, shall give Ihe Qrievoi his deci-
sion in wriling within Seven (7) days of Ihe subm~ssrqn
of the g,ie,vance.
STAGE TWO
27~3.2 II Ihe Qrievanco is no! resolved under Stage One. the
empl&e may submit the grievance 10 Ihe Deputy
Mini&o, his designee wilhin seven (7) days 01 Ihe dale
lhal he received the decision under Stage One In the
even! lhal no decision in writing IS received in accordance
wilh the specilied lime lim!ls in Stage One. Ihe grieve,
‘may~$ubmil the grievance lo Ihe Depuly Mlntsrer 0, his
designee within seven (7) days 01 Ihe dale thal lhe super.
visor was required 10 give his decision in writing in ac.
cordance with Slags One.
27.3.3, The Deputy Minisrs, o, his designee shall hold a meellni
wilh Ihe employee within bIleen (15) days 01 Ihe receipt
01 Ihe grievance and shall give the Qrievo, his decudlon
in wriling wilhin seven (7) days 01 Ihe meebng.
31
14
7.5
7.6.1
7.6 2
,.,,I
7.7,~2
77,3
7.7~4
Any employee olher than a probalfonary enrployec who IS
d,smr?ssod shall be entitled Ia file a grtsvance aI tho se-
cond slags 01 Ihe grievance procedure provided he does
so willtln lwenly (20) days 01 Ihe dale 01 Ihe dismissal.
An employee who is a g”euor or complainanl and who
makes applicarim lor a~hearing belore Ihe Grievance Se!.
llemenl Board o! Ihe Public Service Labour Relal~ons
Tribunal snail be allowed leave-of-absence with no loss
01 pay and wilh no toss 01 credils, 11 required ID be in al.
lendance by Ihe Board or Tribunal.
An employee who has a grievance and is required 10 a!.
lend meetings at Stage One and Two of Ihe Grievance
Procedure shall be given lime 011 wtlh no loss 01 pay and
wth no loss 01 credits lo allend such meel~ngs
The “cum shall adVise fhe O,,eclors 0, Personnel 01 Ihe
allecled minislries with copies lo the Execulive Dwec.
tar. Slafl Relations Division. al the Union Slewards
together with Ihe areas they are authorized to rspresenl.
which list shall be updated al leas! every six (6) months.
32
27 9
(b) Any relerral I” the J”inl Inwrance Benelils
Review Commillee under 27.8.2(a) shall include
e release of inlormalion lorm (Appendix 7) com-
pleled. signed and daled by the employee.
(c) The Joint Insurance Benefits Review Commillee
shall consider lhe complaint and the BenellIs
Policy Branch shell give Ihe employee its deci-
sion in wiling within silly (60) days “I lhe corn
millee meeting al wtvch the compkinf is
discussed.
27.9.3 (a) II the complain! is not salislactarily resolved under
27.9.2, Ihe employee may lile a Qrievance in
wrding with the Execulive Clireclar, Slall Relations
“1 his designee wilhin seven (7) days “1 the dale
he received the de&i”” under 27.9.2(c). I” Ihe
evenl lhal no decisi”n,in wiling is received in ac.
cordance with Ihe specihed lime limils in
.27.9.2(c). Ihe gtievor may.,submil the~grievance
t” the Executive Director a! Stall Relalions within
seven (7) days 01 che date that lhe Benelils Policy
Branch was required ID give its dec;slon in wiling
in accordance with 27.9,2(c).
(6) e wbmissi”” of Ihe grievance 1” Ihe Executive
Oireclor or has designee under this sec11”” shall
be considered 1” be lhe second slags 01 the
grievance procedure for Ihe purpose 01 lhis
Arlicle.
,27.10 Where an employee liles a grievance claiming improper
layoll and the grievance is referred 1” Ihe Grievance Sel-
tlement Board in accordance with 27.4, the Union shall
notify the Employer, in writing, a! least lhree (3) weeks
prior to the dale eslablished tar Ihe Board’s hearing. of
the tide and kation of the posillon which will be the sub-
ject matter 01 the claim before the Board.
‘27 11 Where a grievance is not’processed with,” the bme ellow-
ed or has not been processed by fhe employee or the
Union within the lime prescrtbed il shall be deemed lo
have bee” wilhdrawn~
34
27.12 In this A~ltcle. days shall rnclude a,i days e~luswe 01
Sawdays. Sundeys and designsled holidays.
27 13 The limeiimils contained I” this Arbcle may be erfend-
ed by agreemenl of Iha parhes in wrltmg~
27~14 The Grievance Selllcmenl Boatd shall have nojuris~l~c~
i
lion lo aller, change. emend “r enlarge any plovision 01
lhe Calleclive Agreemen!.
ARTICLE ZB-LEAVE-UNION ACTIVITIES
28.1
20.2
26.3
28.4
Up”” al least lourtcen (14) days’ wllur~ “owe by Ihe
Union. leave-of-absence wilh”“! pay but with “o loss “I
credils shall be granted lor not m”re lhan low 14) con-
secutive days for each employee delegale lor Ihe pur-
pose of allending Ihe Annual Convenlion.
Leave-“l+,bsence wilh no !oSs “I pay and with no loss
of credits shall be glenled 1” a member 01 the Union who
parlicipales in negolialions. mediallo” “I arb!lrall”n. pro-.
wded lhal not more than live (5) employees al any “ne
.lime shall be permilled such leave for any one set 01
negolialions. Provided however. the Union may al iIs
discretion require up ID live (5) additional members ID
parliclpale in negolialions. medialiun or arbilralion who
shall be granled leaves-“l-absence wilhoul pay but with
no loss 01 credits.
.A! the willen requesl “I the Union 01 al leas! lmrleen
(14) days. leaves-ol~absence without pay bul wilh no loss
01 credit~shall be granted 1” an employee for the pw
pose 01 selling demands lo! negonations~ II is underslwd
lhal such meelings will be held on Salurdays or Sundays
and that the total lime granted lor each mslance shall
no1 exce”d two (2) consecubve days lor each employee.
Leave-ol-absence wilh no loss 01 pay and wilh no 10%
01 credits shall be Qranled to a member 01 Ihe Union who
participates in meetings ol (ha Joint insurance Benslits
Review Commitlee as set oul in Appendix 5. provided
35