HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-0558.Canning et al.88-10-11ONTARIO
CROWN EMPLOYEES
GRIEVANCE
SETTLEMENT
BOARD
EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
DE L'ONTA RIO
COMMlSSlON DE
REGLEMENT
DES
GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, TORONTO, ONTARIO. M5G lZ8 - SUITE 2100
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, TORONTO, (ONTARIO) M5G lZ8 - BUREAU2100
TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE
(416) 598-0688
0558/84
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between:
Before :
OPSEU (D.W. Canning et al)
Grievors
and
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Government Services)
Employer
J.W. Samuels Vice Chairperson
I.J. Thomson Member
I.J. Cowan Member
For the Grievors:
T. Hadwen
Counse 1
Cavalluzzo, Hayes & Lennon
Barristers and Solicitors
For the Employer: D.W. Brown, Q.C.
Counse 1
Crown Law Office, Civil
Ministry of the Attorney General
Hearing : August 31, 1988
DECISION
2
On September 23, 1987, the Board issued an award in this matter. We
concluded that the grievors were improperly classified as RE02, a
bargaining-unit classification, and that they should be classified as AM17,
one of the classifications in the Management Compensation Plan, which is a
system of classification designed exclusively for employees performing
managerial functions. We ordered that the grievors be compensated from
the time they made known their complaint, and we awarded interest in the
following terms (at pages 16-17):
There should be interest on each and every sum at
10% compounded annually, from the date on
which the sum was to have been paid to the date on
which it is finally paid.
And we reserved our jurisdiction to hear and determine any matters related
to compensation which the parties were unable to agree upon themselves.
The parties did have several matters over which there was some
disagreement and we were asked to reconvene.
The original panel consisted of Vice-chairman Samuels and Members
Cowan and Schachter.
On the day set for our reconvening, Mr. Schachter
was not available. The parties agreed that Mr. Thomson could sit in
Schachter's place.
The first issue is whether or not, as part of the grievors' compensation,
they are entitled to the Management Compensation Option ("MCO"),
pursuant to Section 15 of Regulation 881 under the Public Service Act.
MCO is a system of credits, which can be taken out as leave or cash,
provided to "employees". Section 15(1)(a) of the Regulation defines
"employee" for purposes of MCO as "a civil servant in a position in a class
set out in Schedule 6 other than a class for which a salary range is
determined through collective bargaining under any Act".
3
In our view, the grievors are entitled to MCO for the entire period for
which they are to receive compensation for two reasons. Firstly, we ruled
that the grievors had been improperly classified since they made known their
complaint, and they were
to receive compensation to put them in the
monetary position they would have been in had they been properly classified
as AM17 for the whole period.
If they had been classified as AM17 from
the outset, they would have received MCO. Thus, in order to put them in the
financial position they would have been in, they should now get their lost
MCO. Secondly, they fit the definition of "employee" in Section 15 of the
Regulation. Their classification is set out in Schedule 6, and, as AM17s,
they were not in a class for which the salary is determined through collective
bargaining. An "employee", as defined in Section 15, is entitled to MCO.
The second matter about which the parties have some disagreement is
the meaning of our award of interest. We said:
There should be interest on each and every sum at
10% compounded annually, from the date on
which
the sum was to have been paid to the date on
which it is finally paid.
Perhaps it would be best to give an example in order to demonstrate how the
calculation is to be done.
Suppose that a grievor received a pay cheque on February 15,1982, in
the amount of $100. This was his salary as an RE02. If he had been
properly classified as an AM17, he would have received $125 in that cheque.
Therefore, he is now entitled to compensation of $25 in respect of that pay
cheque.
If the compensation was finally paid on October 15, 1987, then the
amount which should have been paid in respect of the shortfall on February
15, 1982, is as follows:
4
$25 x 1.1(320/365)[to the end of 1982] x l.l4[to the end of 1986]
x 1.1(288/365)[to October 15, 1987]
Thus, to the end of the first year, there is simple interest for the number of
days between the due date of the sum and the end of the year. Then, at the
end of each of the next full years, the total is compounded again. Finally,
the total is compounded to the date of payment.
From the information given to us at our recent hearing, it appears that
this is what was done in calculating the grievors' compensation.
This interest calculation should also be done in respect of any MCO
payments which were missed.
5
Once again, we will retain our jurisdiction to hear and determine any
matters related to compensation which the parties are unable to agree upon
by themselves.
Done at London, Ontario, this 11th day of October
,1988.
I.J. Thornson, Member
I.J. Cowan, Member