Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-1464.Apfelbeck et al.90-05-03EMPLOY~SDEL.4 CO”RONNE DEL’OONTAR~O CQMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT I DES-GRIEFS &i$) 1465/86 1466/86, 1467/86, 14;8/86 IN TEE NATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under TEE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before TEE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN: BEFORE: FOR TEE GRIEVOR: FOR THE EMPLOYER: HEARING: OPSEU (Apfelbeck et al) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Environment) Employer C.G. Simmons 'Vice-Chairperson E. Seymour Member D. Montrose Member I. Roland Counsel Gowling, Strathy & Henderson Barristers & Solicitors R. Younger Staff Relations Advisor Ministry of the Environment December 20, 1989 December 21, 1989 -s I 2. . 1 DECISION This case involves five grievors who are employed by the Ministry of the Environment at the Elgin Area Water System which is centred at St. Thomas. Two of the grievors, Mr. John A. Apfelbeck and Jack Barrett appeared as witnesses, but it is agreed that this decision is applicable to all five grievors. The grievers' hours of work are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Between 4:30 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., Monday through Friday, one of the grievors is designated to be "on call" and is further designated to be on call for the-24 hours on each of Saturday and Sunday. Each of the grievors share this designation on a rotational basis which means that each grievor must assume the "on call" duties~ every five weeks. The grievances were filed on October 6, 1986, claiming that they be considered to be on "stand-by" under Article 15 of the collective agreement instead of being "on call" as provided for in Article 16. Those articles read as follows: Article 15 - Stand-By Time 15.1 "Stand-by time" means a period of time that is not a regular working period during which an employee keeps himself available for immediate recall to work. : r . 15.2 15.3 15.4 2 Stand-by time shall be approved in writing and such approval shall be given prior to the time the employee is required to stand by except in circumstances beyond the Employer's control. Where an employee is required to stand by for not more than the number of hours in his normal work day, he shall receive four (4) hours' pay at his basic hourly rate. Where an employee is required to stand by for more than the number of hours in his normal work day, he shall receive payment of one-third (l/3) of'the stand-by hours at one and one-half (14) times his basic hourly rate. Article 16 - On-Call Dutv 16.1 "On-call duty" means a period of time that is not a regular working period, overtime period, stand-by period, or call-back period, during which an employee is required to be reasonably available for recall to work. 16.2 On-call duty shall be approved priortothe time the employee is required to be on call. 16.3 Where an employee is required to be on call he shall receive twenty-five cents (25c) per hour for all hours such employee is ~assigned to on-call duty. As can be seen the amount of pay is quite different between Articles 15 and 16. The Employer maintains that the grievors are required to be "on call" pursuant to Article 16 because they are required to be reasonably available for recall to work. The grievors claim that they have kept themselves available for immediate recall to work pursuant to Article 15. 3 Other panels of this Board have been called upon from time to time to address this issue and their decisions will be referred to later in this award. .However,~we wish to note that, almost without exception, the Board has commented that each individual circumstance will have to be determined on its particular fact situation. Accordingly, we intend to relate the facts in some detail that was presented before this Board. The Elgin Area Water System is responsible for two separate operations. One is the water treatment and supply system which supplies St. Thomas and area with potable water as well as water for their fire protection. Additionally, it supplies Ford Motor Company with its water requirements. The second operation is the sewage treatment system which is somewhat smaller and the main _~ community that is, supplied is.Port Stanley. There is an operator on duty at the main station 24 hours a day whose main function is to monitor the two. operations. The entire water system, as well as the sewage system, have automatic alarms that sound when there is a malfunction. These alarms are activated when a low water mark is reached in the water system and a high water mark is reached in the sewage system. To ensure that the system.operates properly there are a number of pumps that operate automatically which are activated when required. However, if the pumps malfunction alarms sound at the main control centre where the operator is located who must decide what the appropriate response must be. In the event that an alarm sounds outside of the hours between 8~00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday ? i: 4 through Friday, he will know where'the malfunction is occurring and will know if it is a sewage or water malfunction, but he will not know what the nature of the malfunction is, nor will he know how serious the situation is because of the malfunction. It is at this point that the operator must make a decision whether to calls the designated person who is "on duty" that week to return and correct the malfunction. Assuming he decides to call the person and if his telephone call to the number listed is unsuccessful, he then contacts a private paging system which contacts the designated employee on the pager and instructs that person to contact the operator. Mr. Jack Barrett is one of the employees who participates in this rotating l~on-call~~ function. He was first employed on January i980, and when he was interviewed he was informed that he had to live within 20 kilometres of the plant. To his knowledge, the same condition has been imposed on other persons hired as well. Mr. Barrett testified that~the water is pumped out of Lake Erie and into the treatment plant where it is treated and then sent into the system. The water goes to St. Thomas, Port Burwell, and Vienna. It serves a population of approximately 45,000 to 50,000. As mentioned earlier, the plant also supplies Ford Motor Company. He informed us that St. Thomas uses approximately 4-5 million gallons per day, but during the peak summer months that can increase to between 6 and 7 million gallons per day. This water is pumped into the St. Thomas reservoir by the pumps at a booster station. There are three pumps located at this station, each of which is capable 5 of pumping 6 million gallons perday. Two of the pumps are what are called "first line duty pumps" which alternate‘ from time to time. Both of these pumps cannot be operating at the same time. The third pump is referred to as the "second line duty pumpI* and will be activated in certain situations such as when the water level becomes low or if one of the first two pumps malfunctions. Mr. Barrett testified that should the pumps stop, say in the peak season such as June, July r and August, it would only take approximately 30 minutes before the water pressure dropped. However, he indicated that the St. Thomas water tower could give water to the community for another half hour or so. The operator at the control centre is able to start and stop any one of the pumps from his location. However, if there is a malfunction he is unable to leave his control room and this is when he must decide whether or not to call in the mechanic "on duty." Mr. Barrett informed us that the booster station is approximately 10 miles away from the plant where the operator is located. We were further informed that should the water levels become low, the number three second line duty pump automatically activates. As stated earlier, the operations also involve a sewage system serving Port Stanley, Belmont, and a smaller community nearby. Disposal of sewage is by way of a lagoon system. There are four lagoons at Port Stanley and two in Belmont. Sewage reaches the lagoons through a pumping system. There is one main pumping station at Port Stanley and four sub-stations. There are three stations in Belmont. Each station has two pumps. Once again, 6 these systems are monitored by alarms which alert the operator at Central Control. The difference in this system is that the alarms are activated when the water level becomes too high as opposed to the water system which activates the alarms when the water level becomes too low. This monitoring is by a float system which tells the operator that the levels have become too high. It is noted that the pumps are not monitored by the operator but that the levels are. If a problem arises at-Port Stanley, a light comes on at the Central Control and once again the operator must make a judgement call whether to call the person "on call" to attend to the problem. If he decides to contact the person then that person must go to Port Stanley, enter a building where a panel exists which informs the person where the problem is located. It is at this point that it is discovered whether one of the pumps in one of the stations has malfunctioned, or indeed whether both of the pumps have ceased to function. According to Mr. Barrett, these pumps which have malfunctioned must be reactivated or a spillage from the lagoons is possible. In the event that they cannot be reactivated, a judgement call must be made whether to engage local sewage trucks to haul sewage away in order to prevent spilling or to continue attempting to correct the situation. Mr. Barrett informed us that the Belmont situation presents a problem in that the system was undersized at the time it was built. Problems arise when there have been situations where rain has occurred for three or more days causing high levels meaning that the pumps were just keeping up to the situation. 7 Mr. Barrett also informed us that a number of problems may occur such.as faulty seals in the pumps allowing water to penetrate into the electrical system and thereby grounding them out. Other problems include foreign material that should not have entered the system, such as pop cans and even 2x4s which plugged the pumps. A final area of concern to Mr. Barrett, and to all concerned, is to the well-being of the operator at the Control Centre. The operators work 12-hour shifts and from 4:30 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. on Monday through Friday and on weekends he is the only person in the plant. Accordingly, some safeguards have been put in place concerning his health and safety. To this end, there is in place a system whereby he is required to deactivate an alarm system every 30 minutes failing which an alarm activates the telephone answering service and informs the person to contact the person on duty informing him that the operator has failed to deactivate the alarm and that he should go to the plant immediately. Once again Mr. Barrett informed us that once the designated person on duty receives such a call he calls the operator at the plant and if he does not get an answer goes immediately to the plant. However, Mr. Barrett did inform the Board that this has not occurred to him but has occurred to others on three or four occasions. It was Mr. Barrett's testimony that when called either at home or on his pager he responded immediately to the call because he did not know the severity of the problem. He indicated that if he were called on his pager while, say, attending a baseball game he 8 could then not finish watching or playing the game because he was aware that St. Thomas could possibly be out of water. Similarly, if it was a sewage problem he could not be sure of the situation, and it was his belief that he would be responsible under the m if sewage spilled out of the lagoon. Mr. Barrett was then provided with a list of call-ins since January 26, 1987 (Exhibit 2) with a short description of what the nature of the call-in was. In hindsight, he indicated that some were urgent and some were not, but he went on to say that at the time he did not know until he reached the scene. In any event, it was his testimony that he responded "quickly" (as opposed to using the word "immediatelyl@) on each occasion. Under cross-examination Mr. Barrett indicated that his response time to the various locations could range from between 10 and 40 minutes. Given the worst possible scenario it was his evidence that St. Thomas could be out of water within 30 minutes of a failure during peak periods. So when asked that the possible worst scenario could result in St. Thomas being out of water for. 10 minutes and if that could be improved by a stand-by system, Mr. Barrett replied, "1 believe we are on a stand-by system.ll Mr. John Apfelbeck is a long-time employee with the Elgin Water System who testified that in July, 1989, he was called by the operator at the Control Centre when a malfunction at the booster station in St. Thomas sent off an alarm. This occurred shortly after the supper hour and when he arrived at the station he found 7 i: s 9 that the second duty line pump, that is pump #3, was not operating. This, of course, left only one of the other two'pumps operating as they will not operate simultaneously.' Mr. Apfelbeck started pump #3 manually and he regulated the needle valve so it would continue to run. He remained at the station until the water tank was back up to its normal level and then he shut it down and worked on the valve for approximately one-half hour at which time Mr. Roger Power, the plant superintendent, arrived and informed him that they were encountering low pressures. Moreover, Mr. Power informed Mr. Apfelbeck that the operator could not reach him. Once again, Mr. Apfelbeck started up the auxiliary pump to again fill the water tank to its proper level. The point of this is that when the water tank in the Elgin water system drops one meter, then the alarms sound and the water system to St. Thomas is shut off. -One meter in the Elgin tank system is approximately 20,000 gallons and when there is a high demand by St. Thomas that 20,000 gallons will disappear in less than 15 minutes. Mr. Apfelbeck informed us that as soon as the Elgin water system is again restored to normal the valves automatically open to allow water into the St. Thomas system once more. It was Mr. Apfelbeck's opinion that the high demand for the water and sewage systems was between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and noon and 5:00 p.m. to 1O:OO p.m. It was pointed out under cross- examination that 'St. Thomas has a reservoir tank that holds' approximately 500,000 gallons and even if the valves closed shutting off St. Thomas from the Elgin water system, it would not mean that St. Thomas was immediately out of water. However, on re- i c 7: -3 10 examination, Mr. Apfelbeck stated that in a peak period the 500,000 gallons would last approximately 20 minutes. Mr.-Roger Power, superintendent of the water system, has been an employee since 1970. He has been superintendent for a little over one year and before that he was the assistant superintendent. He has been a member of management for approximately 12 years. He informed us that he was involved in the grievance procedure and a memorandum to one of the grievors was introduced through Mr. Power which had been authored by Mr. F.J. Bartlett who was then superintendent of the Elgin Area Water System. It is dated October 8, 1986 and reads as follows (Exhibit 6): Re: Grievance on Call Duty I feel on call duty is part of the Collective Agreement and as such is a binding agreement between the Ministry of the Environment and its' employees. Article 16-1 of the agreement states on call as a period of time during which an employee is required to be reasonably available for recall to work. The dictionary defines reasonably as rational, just and fair. As the definition of reasonable states to be reasonably available for recall to work is not a definite time i.e. 15 minutes, one half hour, or whatever. It is a time that is rational, just and fair, for the employee and the Ministry. The pager in my~ opinion has allowed the on-call person more freedom of movement. With the pager they can be reasonably available for recall even though they are away from a phone. It (the pager) gives the person freedom to shop, dine out, sit in the back yard, visit friends or relatives etc., as long as the time to return to work is rational, just and fair. 11 To my knowledge .no employee of this project was ever asked nor has it ever ~been implied that when they are on call they keep themselves available for immediate recall to work as it states in article 15-l of the Agreement for stand-by time. Mr. Power testified that he does not regard being on the call-in list and having to report for work when called connotes the same degree of urgency as do the grievors. It was his belief that if a problem arose late at night, such as a pump going out, he would leave it until morning. He too made a list of the various call- ins from 1986 through to November, 1989 (Exhibit 8) and rated the degree of urgency, which in his view, each situation entailed. These ratings rate from very low: to low; to moderate. It was his position that none of the call-ins were urgent and when asked how he felt about the response he was getting from his staff, he answered, "Very good, and I thank them for it." He was asked what instructions he gave to those on call concerning responses, and, according to my notes,. responded, "All I ask is that they be available - never stipulated a time limit - all use judgement well - haven't encountered a situation where instantaneous response was needed." When asked what he would regard as a reasonable response time, he replied one hour. When asked what he would regard as the requirement of stand-by he replied he would expect them to stay at home and be ready to leave within 10 or 15 minutes.. It was his view that a pump usually fails when it is shutting down which means that the water towers are full and therefore there could be a couple of hours lapse time before a major problem arose. Mr. Power 7: 12 informed us that he has said there is no need to go to a booster station in the middle of the night and there is no need to get into a second duty pump situation until about 8:00 a.m. Under cross-examination, Mr. Power answered the lead-off question, "Is it your understanding -- is it fair to say -- that the operators have been led to believe that they are to respond immediately?" Mr. Power answered, "Yes." But Mr. Power was not prepared to be pinned down to admitting that a response to a page within one hour was adequate in every circumstance. It was his position that he wants the employees to reply as soon as possible, but if it is within one hour then that is not a problem. Using the July 18, 1989, situation that has been referred to above by Mr. Apfelbeck in which the operator was unable to contact him while he was repairing the pumps and Mr. Power was called to visit Mr. Apfelbeck's area of work, Mr. Power was asked whether he considered that to be one of urgency. He replied, III expect 'that he would ask [the operator] if we are losing, etc., and if the answer is yes then I would expect him to go reasonably." When asked how quickly that-meant, Mr. Power replied, "It would depend on where he is located.1' Mr. Power agreed with Mr. Apfelbeck that if the valves to the St. Thomas system closed then St. Thomas would have approximately 20-30 minutes water supply. Mr. Power was again asked whether he *agreed that the employees respond as if they were on a stand-by basis and he replied, "I have already acknowledged that, and I appreciate it." ^ 13 During the course of cross-examination and re-examination of Mr. Power it was admitted, without objection, that the parties had attempted to resolve this matter prior to this arbitration hearing. We understand the discussions centred around placing these employees on stand-by during certain hours while they were designated to be available outside of normal working hours . Mr. Roland suggested that those hours were between a:00 p.m. and midnight, but Mr. Power replied that those hours were not in the peak period of use. It was Mr. Power's opinion that the degree of urgency in the sewage system was considerably less than that pertaining to the water system. The evidence of the three above-mentioned witnesses consumed approximately a day and a half. While we have attempted to set out the evidence in some detail, it will be appreciated that we could only highlight it at best. We also wish to point out that while we have placed the words "on call," "on duty," and sometimes "stand by" in quotes the reader should not interpret these quotations in any particular way. We attach no special meaning to those words as used. Before argument commenced the Board had concluded, based on the evidence that we heard, that the grievances ought to be allowed in part. We informed the parties of this decision and indicated that it would not be necessary to proceed to argument. Notwithstanding our ruling, we invited the parties to make submissions in writing if they desired and we set time limits, which were agreeable to the parties, when those submissions ought c’: '14 t,o be submitted. Both parties 'have subsequently made written submissions which we have considered in detail. It was our ruling that, based on the evidence, there are certain hours during the day that require a greater urgency to respond. Mr. Power had indicated in his evidence that the peak period in the morning commences around 6:30 a.m. However, the shift begins at 8:00 a.m. when all five grievors appear for work. Having given this period as being one of the peak periods of usage we considered whether this period ought to have been designated as "stand by." However, we rejected this consideration for the following reasons. Assuming that a malfunction occurred around 6:30 a.m. the operator would have to determine the nature of the malfunction and decide whether such malfunction required the need to contact- the l'on'calll' employee. Assuming further, that after giving the matter consideration, the operator concluded that he ought to contact the "on duty" employee we are of the view that the earliest time when such employee could arrive at the site, under normal circumstances, would be sometime between 7~00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. But the-entire crew is scheduled to commence their normal daily work schedules at 8:00 a.m. and, therefore, we would think that it would only be in the extraordinary circumstances that the operator would contact the "on duty" employee in this type of situation. .Moreo.ver, we were not presented with evidence that this period of time caused an inordinate number of call-ins due to malfunctions. Therefore, we c :: 15 ruled out the hours between 6530 a..m. and 8:00 a.m. as falling into the category of "emergency response." Mr. Power also informed us that another peak period begins around 4:30 p.m. and lasts until 8:00 or 8:30 p.m. It is even conceivable that the peak period could continue until 10:00 p.m. It was our view, based on the evidence, that the hours between 4:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. require a greater sense of urgency in responding to call-ins. Accordingly, we ruled that the period between 4:30 p.m. and 8~30 p.m., Monday through Friday be considered stand-by time and the remainder be considered on-call time. The evidence did not address weekends and statutory holidays and therefore we are unable to make a determination regarding those days. We also ruled that the grievances are to be allowed up'to 20 days before the grievances were filed but that there is to be no interest paid during this period. We will now elaborate on the reasons for our decision. We recognize that the parties have specifically provided for both "stand-by time" and t'on-call duty" in their collective agreement. A determination as to which situation applies can only be made after hearing the evidence on each individual fact situation. It is unfortunate that the parties have not been able to define what they mean by "reasonably available" as cited in Article 16. We have been referred to at least seven previous decisions of this Board, some of which have allowed the grievances and others have denied them. In the first decision involving Jamieson et al. (Prichard), dated May 25, 1978, denied the grievance requesting !.- 16 stand-by duty. In that particular situation the employees had been informed by a memo dated August '24, 1977, what "on-call duty" required of the employees. On page 4 of that award the memorandum reads in part: The employee shall respond to such call-back in a reasonable length of time, which has been defined as two hours. The Board went on at page 8 to state the following: We have considerable sympathy for the employees' view; the system in its announced form is restrictive of the employees and there is no doubt that it has reduced their ability to utilize fully their free time. Furthermore, we understand that the critical feature of the recall system from their point of view is the contact requirement, not~the two hour period. In many cases, it will be of little solace to the employees to be informed that there is an emergency but then to be reminded that they have two hours to respond. The next decision was Avvelle (Swan) dated March 14, 1979. On page 5 of that decision the Board stated, In the present case, however, there were also instructions in writing. Exhibit 1, a typewritten instruction sheet obviously intended for maintenance mechanics on call (and so identified by the grievor), includes the following description of the responsibility of the on-call mechanic when paged and informed of an alarm: The person Iton call" will have no acknowledgement to make except to get to the plant as ouicklv as vossible and clear the alarm condition....[emphasis added by the Swan Board]. t 17 On the evidence before us, we are satisfied that the grievor had ample grounds to conclude that the instructions given to him required him to report to the plant "as quickly as possible," an expression which more closely fits the "immediate" test of Article 15. In the Avvelle case the Employer immediately responded to the grievance setting out the reasonable test and consequently there was only a short period of time that the grievance was successful. In P. Walker and Wavne Tavlor (Samuels), dated November 10, 1982, the grievors were motor vehicle operators, employed in th,e Transport Branch of the Ontario Provincial Police, who, during the summer of 1982, participated in a rotational "pager schedule," carrying a pager on weekends and standing ready to drive a command trailer if an emergency arose. One of the uses of these trailers was to be taken to areas when needed to serve as a command unit. They contained tables, chairs, telephones, telex equipment, and the like. When emergencies arose the trailer was not necessarily called in immediately. In 1982 a new system was put into place and a new pager schedule was introduced for the on-call duty officer for the command trailer. That memorandum reads in part as follows: The pager allows you freedom to carry on with your normal activities in the city. While on call we ask that you be prepared to leave to operate the command trailer at a moment's notice... [emphasis of the Samuel's Board]. The Board went on to interpret that the meaning of "at a moment's notice" meant that the operators were to consider themselves ready to respond immediatelv and therefore the grievances were allowed. 18 This issue was again visited-in G. Monarain (Slone), June 30, 1988, which involved employees 'who were environmental officers employed by the Ministry of the Environment. The grievors in that case were all part of an emergency response programme that was developed in early to mid-1986. The Ministry had come under intense pressure from the public and the media for what had been perceived to be a slow response to a major fire at the Chipman Chemical Plant in Stoney Creek. The Slone Board reviewed the jurisprudence and concluded that the assignments given to the grievors was more clearly on-call duty as opposed to stand-by duty and dismissed the grievances. However, the concluding words of the award on page 14 are interesting. They read: It would certainly be preferable for both parties to have much clearer guidelines to define more precisely the different states of readiness required of the ERPs. The context of "reasonable availability" is too general and nebulous to be left as the final word on the subject. Since reasonableness is always a concept that has reference to a specific context, it is for the parties operating in that context to agree in advance on some standards of reasonableness. Such local standards would go a long way to avoiding uncertainty and conflict. Finally, there is the decision of S. (Emrich), November 1, 1987, which also involved the Ministry of the Environment. Ms. Emrich approached the issue somewhat differently than the other panels in that she reviewed each situation that had happened and drew conclusions as to whether each situation was a stand-by or an on-call situation. 19 In the instant situation we.know that the grievors consider it to be their duty to respond to calls immediately. But where do they get this understanding? There have been no instructions issued by the employer that we are aware of which gives them any clear understanding of what is expected of them such as was the case in the Jamieson case, supra. Mr. Bartlett, in his response to the grievance, which was reproduced above at pages 10 and 11, simply stated that "reasonably available for recall to work is not a definite time: i.e., 15 minutes, one-half hour, or whatever it is a time that is rational, just and fair, for the employee, and the Ministry." In our view, that statement~does not assist the grievors in defining the meaning or the term "reasonably available." We were not provided with any other written instructions or definitions that had been given to the grievors. We were provided with a memorandum dated November 13, 1972 to superintendents and chief operators from Mr. D.A. McTavish, Director, Project Operations Branch, relating to "on-call duty", (Exhibit 7). However, there is no evidence that the employees were made aware of this memorandum. Indeed, Mr. Power stated in his evidence concerning instructions he had given relating to "on-call duty" was that all he asked was that they (the grievors) "be available" and he never stipulated any time limit. It was his view that all of the employees used their judgements well and he has not encountered a situation where instantaneous response was needed. If in fact it is the position of the Elgin Area Water System plant that one hour response time is adequate, it seems to us that this 20 information should have been communicated to the grievors. Moreover, Mr. Power candidly admitted that he believed the operators were under the impression that they were to respond 8'immediately" and, if such were not the case, given his belief, he ought to have informed the grievors that they were not required to respond immediately. While Articles 15 and 16 in the collective agreement stipulate l'stand-by" and 180n-call'8 duty, it appears to this panel that the employer cannot have it both ways. While it is true that the employer has not instructed the grievors to respond immediately the evidence 'is clear that the employer was aware that the employees were operating under the understanding that they were on "stand-by duty" and did nothing to change the grievers' understanding. The employer was aware that the grievors considered themselves to be obligated to respond immediately but said or directed nothing to the grievors to indicate that they were operating under a misapprehension. In our view, ordinarily the employer must specifically give directions that an employee is "on call" or "stand by" duty. However, situations may arise, as in this case, where the employer is aware that an employee believes that he is operating under the stand-by article of the Collective Agreement and accepts the benefit of his services on that basis, only to object later, such as the circumstances of this case, which given these circumstances, cannot be permitted to do so. 21 Finally, there was introduced a memorandum dated December 7, 1989 from Mr. Power to the St. Thomas Answering Service which outlined a procedure to be followed should the answering service receive an alarm from the Elgin Area Water System. This is in relation to a situation where the operator failed to trip the signal or alarm every 30 minutes as is required (Exhibit 4). The memorandum reads in part as follows: Message will state there is an emergency at the plant: message will also inform you who to call. The tape will give you the name and phone number of one of the following people. [There follows the names and telephone numbers of the five employees who participate in this rotating on-call duty.] The memorandum then continues to state that if you do not get an answer from one of the people listed, you are to wait for ten minutes and then if you do not get a phone call from the person they had paged, then start phoning the people on the following list. (There follows. a longer list of names and telephone numbers starting with Mr. Power,, the superintendent: Mr. Wayne Campbell, the assistant superintendent: followed once again by the five named people on the rotational designated list; and finally Mr. Mike Auger, the regional superintendent.) The memorandum continues: When you do contact one of the above people, inform them that there is an emergency at the plant. Once you have contacted one of the above and given them the message, you will have completed your involvement in this particular incident. 22 Mr. Power stated that the reason he had used the word emergency was to impress upon the answering service the urgent nature of contacting someone as quickly as possible. Finally, the reason we selected the 4:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. as requiring more urgency was two-fold. Since January 1986 to November 1989 there have been 44 call-ins. Six of these call-ins have no times recorded when the call-ins occurred and so we deleted these call-ins from the total. But the total number of call-ins with times recorded is 38. Of the 38 call-ins, 16 occurred between 4:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. which represents 42.11% of the total. Moreover, the evidence is clear that the period between 4:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. is one of the peak periods when the system is being heavily utilized. It was our conclusion therefore that the employees "on call" during these hours must respond with a greater sense of urgency than at other times. This is especially so in light of the evidence given by Mr. Power that the response time can indeed be up to one hour from the time the person receives the call which in turn may take up to 30 minutes before being able to reach the site of the problem. Accordingly, it is conceivable that an hour and a half might elapse between the time when the initial call goes out until the time the called in employee arrives. However, we do not believe, based on the evidence, that such an elapsed time during the hours of 4:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. would either be desirable or acceptable. Accordingly, it is our decision that the hours of 4:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. be considered llstand-by'@ and all other hours be regarded as on an "on-call" basis. 9 t ! iT I 23 As stated above the grievance succeeds and the employees are to be compensated as being on stand-by between the hours of 4:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. commencing 20 days prior to the filing of the grievance but this compensation is to be without interest. The Board will remain seized of its jurisdiction to assist the parties in implementing this decision should it be necessary to do so. Dated at Kingston, Ontario th is 3rd day of May , 1990. ‘\ ~ * _. .‘, ~. 1~ , ‘. :i.” ~-’ C. G. Simmons Vice-Chairperson E. Seymour Member D. Montrose Member