Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-2508.Galloway.89-02-07ON7ARIO EMPLOYESDE LA “~i”!,O,irii CROWNEMPLOYEES Lx L’ONTA”,” GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT RkGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS Mr. K.B. Cribbie Staff Relations Officer Human Resources Branch Ministry of Transportation 1201 k'ilson Avenue blest Tower, 1st Floor Downsvi'ew, Ontario F13F1 IJ8 Dear Etr. Cribbie: RE: 2508/86 OPSEU (Steve Galloway) and the Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) Enclosed for .your information is a copy of the Board's Decision in the above-noted matter. ?_ Yours truly, .mtNAL SIGNED BY: Joan Shirlow Registrar /ldS Encl. EMPLO”ESOE LA CCWRONNE DE L’ONTIRIO CQMMISSION DE REGLEMENT DES GRIEFS Between: IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Before: ;. .For the Grievor: For the Employer: OPSEU (Steve Galloway1 and The Crown in Right of Ontario (M~inistry of Transportation) M.V. Watters Vice-Chairperson J.D. McManus Member H. Roberts Member C. Dassios Counsel Gowling & Henderson Barristers and Solicitors K.B. Cribbie Staff Relations Officer Human Resources Branch Ministry of Transportation 2508/86 Grievor ' Employer Hearing: ._-__ January 13, 1969 DECISION This panel of the Board, in an award released March 17, 1988, found that the employer’s redesignarion of t,he grievor’s headquarters to Ajax, Ontario, subsequent to his move to Crafton in late 1986, was inequitable in the context of article 38.5(b) of the collective agreement. Specifically, we concluded that the redesignation was not “equitable to both the employee and the ministry” as contemplated by the aforesaid article. The Board therefore allowed the grievance in part and remitted the matter back to the parties for further discussion and the ultimate selection of a headquarters that more equitably allocated the responsibility for travel costs. Jurisdiction was retained in the event that the parties failed to arrive at a resolution of this issue. , _. 1989 for was posi This same panel of the Board was reconvened on January 13, r. I as the parties were unable to agree on a new headquarters the grievor. A limited amount of new evidence and argument presented at the second hearing. Simply put, it was the tion of the employer that the most equitable headquarters would be the O.P.P. Detachment at the intersection of Highways 12 and 40~1 in Whitby. This location is approximately three kilometers south of the grievor’s former residence (and -I- headquarters) in that town. Alternatively, the Inspection Centre at Thickson Road and Highway 401 appropriate site. In response, Hope headquarters would best ens travel costs. in Oshava was suggested as an the union submitted that a Port ure the equitable sharing of After considering the respective submissions, we are unable to adjudge that any of the suggested sites would provide for an “equitable” headquarters. Those advanced by the employer, in our estimation, would require the grievor to assume ‘an excessive share of travel costs for assignments close to or vest of Whitby. Similarly, we think that the Port Hope location would result in the employer having to assume an undue share of such costs. It is our co,nclusion that a designated headquarters at Newcastle, Ontario, would better reflect the intention of article 38.5 of the collective agreement for the following reasons: (i) A headquarters at that location would more evenly apportion the increase in travel costs occasioned by the grievor’s move to Grafton and vould more effectively reflect the greater distances the grievor may now have to travel to arrive at a vork site. This latter aspect was insufficiently considered by the employer subsequent to the issuance of our first award. (ii) It recognises that the grievor must assume a significant share of the increase in travel costs which could be generated by his voluntary decision to relocate. In this regard, we note that the distance between Grafton and Newcastle is approximately forty-six (46) kilometers. -2- (iii) Such a headquarters would not materially prejudice the interests of the employer when the grievor is assigned to work in the eastern part of the Central Region. In these instances, it treats the employee,‘a residence as the headquarters for purposes of calculation of travel entitlements; and (iv) The employer has some control over where employees are assigned. to vork and, indeed, has a practice of assigning close to the residence if that is possible. If work in the eastern section of the Central Region does “dry up” as speculated, the employer may be entitled to resort to article 38.4(c) of the collective agreement for purposes of redesignation of the grievor’s headquarters. While it would have bee; preferable for the parties to have decided this issue for themselves, the Board is satisfied that sufficient evidence has been adduced to allow us to finally determine the issue of equitabi ._.. The Board therefore’ desi headquarters for the grievor. lity. gnates Newcastle, Ontario; as the This designation is .to. be effective&as of January 13, 1989. Compensation was not specifically claimed in the original grievance nor was it the subject of discussion on the first day of hearing. Additionally, we are disinclined .fo make a retroactive award in the circumstances of this case, in that a recalculation of expenses could lead to the grievor and/or other’employees being indebted to the employer for an overpayment. Further, from the facts presented, it does not seem that’the grievor has been significantly prejudiced to date by the employer’s decision :0 -3- redesignate his headquarters to Ajax, Ontario. We will again retain jurisdiction for purposes of implementation of this award. Dated at Windsor, Ontario, this 7th. day of February , 1989.