The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1987-1875.Tratnyek.88-06-30Between: ------- Before: ------ 1875/S7 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Grievor OPSEU (A. Tratnyek) and The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community and Social SerViceS) EmQlOyeS For the Grievor: --------------- For the Employer: --------_------- Hearing: ------- B.B. Fisher Vice Chairman I. Freedman Member P. Camp Member M. ~Ruby Counsel Gosling and Benderson Barristers and Solicitors E. Bipfner Staff Relations Officer Staff Relations branch iiuman Resources Secretariat March 3, 19SS DECISION 7n-Lec.ase involves theentitleraantofa S&Aule6employeetoanwl allmance u&r Article 17.1.1 of the Collective Agremmt. zhegrievor is aprogramr analystwh.ichisclassifiedasaSch&ule6 qloyee under Article 7.3 of the c0llective Agxenmt. Article 7.3 of the c0llective Agzxmmt statPsthatthenormalhnusof workforSche&le6employeasax-etobea minimum of 36 l/4 hours per week. Noreference ismadeinSchedule6toany maximum mrlnher Of hcurs. lhisE!cmlhasheldinothercasesthatSchedule6employees are not entitled to overtime u&r Article 13 of the Collective Agreamt. Bothofthepartiestothisgrievanwa acceptthat pmpcsition. Iheissueinthiscaseiswfietherormta SAedule6employeeis entitledtoamealall- when he fulfills the following qualifications. 1. Heworksmorethan361/4hoursinagivenweek; 2. He.worksmorethan7 1/4hcws inaparticularday: 3. Hewor~atl&2hcursmrethan71/4 hours ina particularday, inotherwo~U.~,mrksatleast 9 l/4 hous. The grievortestifiedthathis nomal knxkweekms 361/4 hours. During1986heworkedonaspecialp~jectinHamFltonandit~ agreedtobyMeteamthathe~wbrkingwiththat~~wouldwork4 daysaweek for 9 hoursperday. Gnoaasion, thegrievorworked ine~cessof a 9 hourdayandunder certaincirormstances,heclaimdamaalallmmce. He claimed a meal allmanceifthe follmingconlitionswere fulfilled: -2- 1. Ifhistotal hours fortheweak inquestionwem inexcess of 36 l/4 ho&us, and: 2. If.anaparticvlardayhe~r~ll~orm3~,inother worde,hisregular9hcu?Splus2extrahc%u?L Thegriw0ralsoclaimsmsa.l allmance for tima spent in !lbronto on a 5 dayweekbutbasedona7Y4harrregular&y,~fore,heisonly claimi.ngamalallowanas afterhexmrked 9 1/4hours. lhegriwortestified that he felthehad toworkthe extrahours ~~of~~thathadtobemetandtheinabilitytoschedule the use of cqmtersattheappropriatetbas. HeiMiicatedthathe madethedecisionastowfietherornattoworktheextrahours. He usuallymadethedecisioncmtheday inqueetion towads the endof the day,based~the~ofworkthathadtobedoneandthet~ frames involved. ~sriworresuestedastatementfrrmntheMinistryastowhattheir policy was on meal allmamzes for ScBneone in his position, and in respmse he received a letter which was marked as D&ibit #lo. In essence,hewastoldthathisdinnermealwnuldbepaidforbythe ~layerifhewas~to~rk~thenormalmealperiodand ifheprcvidedreceipts. Ishmldmtethatbecausehewasworkingin ~Hamiltontichwasm-ethan24kilci~ters away frmhis assigned headquarters,hewaspaidthecostofhislun&pursuarrt to Article 17.2.2 of the Collective Ag?zmmt. Shortlyafizxreceivingthis response frmxmmgemnt, thegriwor filedhis claim forovertimemeal expemeswh.ich-mrkedasE&ibits#2ard#3.Thesemealexpmses -3- wereal. filedonthesamaday inJuly, andcweredapericd from July, 1986 to July, 1987. Noreceipts~attadnzdtotheclaim natwithstandingthattheformitselfseenstocdllfor~receipts. mclvsse ticn, thegrievortestifiedthathedidnotput reoeiptsinwithhisIEdlallawanCe requestkeca.ueehewaeralyimgon AI-Ccl@ 17.1.1 whi& he e mttorequbzmceipt.5 The grievor admitted in cross -2cminationthatheneVergctanycvertime plyanAinthepasthasneverbeenpaidamealallumxx Fpusuantb 17.1.1. The grievor also admitted incrces-examimtionthathems nevertolddirecfLyby~gementthathehadto~rkextrahoursat anyparti~artimebutratherhegenerallysethisownhoursofwork but giventhedemands of the job, he felthewas ?zqiredtoperfom workcverandabve 361/4 hoursaweakandcverardaMveeither9 or 71/4hwrsperdaydq1endiqonhislocation. ~g~'sfirstwitnesswasJ~~~~,~~~rof the g-riwor. Mr. White testifiedthathismnagemant stylewas not to ~trackoftheccnningandgoingofhisanpl~butrathertoset objedivesanddeadlinesand~psopletomaMgetheir~time withinthatf xamworktoachiwetheexps&xIgcals. Mr. White acJamwledgedthatatcertaintimesthegrievorwas~tobeon thepIJ3kestiintaractwi~othe.rpersonnel 0rtoatteMmsetings krt,generallyspeaking,~oftheworkperformedbythegrievorwas doneonhismnaoxxdingtohismhcpus. Mr. Wtetestifiedthatsomaofthecther irdividualswhowere Schedule 6 employees sutanittedclaims ford.imermIertheprovisiOns ‘I -4- of Article 17.2.5 of the Collective z!geemmtardthattheeeanKnJn~ were paid. Hetestified, hcwever, thatthegrievorneverinitiateda claim for reimbursement of a nml expanse plrsuant to Article 17.2.5. Mr. White testified thathedidnut scheduleanyhcutx forthe grievor kR rather set deadlines a&did notmnitcr the grievor's work.on a daily kasis. ~.~~didask~grievorandtheotherindividuals ~theteaminIEamiltontokeeptrackofMeirt~andsutnnittime she&sbutthismsnotdonefora%ypxxmnelpuqcse hltrathe.reo that~.whitecoulddeterminewfaetherornottheproject~on budget. Mr.Whitetestifiedthatthesetimeshe&swereneverpassed cm to the - d-t. mereforethisBoa?Aomcludes that the fact thatthegrievor filled cut tim sheets is not indicative in anyway of the fadthatthe~layertreatedanyhoursworkedasbeing overtime. Nr. tihitawas candid in the factthathe malized that the grievor had workeslhoursoverandabvethentinimm 36 l/4 ~OLXS as specified in Article 7 and in fact said that he had worksd beside the grievor for scaTeOftheseexteMedhcurs. Mr.Whitewasalsocandidinadmittinq thattheprojedprobablywouldnothave~~letedontineandon bdgetifothermnbere 0ftheteamhadnotworkedinexCxss of the nrinimm 36 l/4 haurs. 'Ihefadsinthiscasearenotreallyindisplte.Inessence,wehave aSchedule6empbyeewhopericdicallywor~inexcess of 2 tlours extm werwhathewculdnonnallyworkon a givenwcrkdaywho seeks ampansaticn of $4.00 par meal pxsuant to Article 17.1.1. -5- In0rdertoprqer1ymderstard thiscase,itisimpxtantto mSzebm3 the pmpx.e &him3 Article 17.1.1. Union ccmsel in his clc&igindicat&ithatthepuqxxeofthearticlewastocmpznsate euplcyees for the inamvenimceofhavingtowork excessive hours and seemedtoiniicatethatthatwarldbeespeciallyaFplicableina situation~an~loyee,likethegrievor,wasnotentitledto cvertime pay. This Boardrejects theaqumentthatthepuqmeof Article 17.1.1 is as stated by Union cmnsel. Rather, thiSElOXd@kS the position that the puqxse Of Article 17.1.1 is to ozqensate ~1ayeeswhoarerequiredbyIMMgementtoworkavertimein~of 2 hourswithoutbeinggivenprqermtice. Flqthamre, fAepurpc6e of the section is not tc entitle employees to put $4.00 in their pocket if theyhappento~rklongeronaparti~ardaytPltratherintendst0 cqxansatethemuptoa mminm of $4.00 for having to have a medl away fmmhane~~theyhadprevi~lyreliedupcnhavingsuchamealat hma. This provision, therefore, seeks to aqensatethoseemployeS forthe extra qxnse ofhavingtc eat outside thehmawhentheyhave previouslyplann& to eatathoma. Inorderto clearly tufwdadwhetharornctthe griwor is entitled a meal allowance pusuant to Article 17.1.1, it is necessary tc examine thesectionanistxtitheamstituenteleuranteofhispctential mtitlement. Ihegriwormust satisfy the follmingcriteria. 1. Hemstwcrkmorethan2hcmswertin% Thisraiseethe question as tcwhetherornotthe (xllloept of overtim is applicable in anywaywhatxevertoa S&Mule 6 employee. Itisthepositionofthe -6- emplayerthatinsofarasa~~e6anployeehasonlya~hour mqhmbent of 36 l/4 ard no maxbum stated either in the public ServiceAct or the Collective Agremmtuleninfacttheconoeptof overtbe tc a S&edule 6 enployee is not applicable. Article 13 of the Collective Agreement ta&abxItoverbeandclearlyeliminat&the ~ibilityofavertimeasdefinedinArticle13to~e6 employees (see Articles 13.7.1 and 13.7.2). Even when a Schedule 6 enployeeisentitledto scmaxrmeybihichtightnormallybecall& avertime, Article 13.7.2 clearly indicates that it is calculated on a differentbasis, thatisan8hcurday,mta 71/4hcurdayand it is mtevmcalledovertime. mployer's ccmselgcesontosaythatifa Schedule6enployeecannot be paid overtimethenhecannotpxsiblyworkmorethan 2 hours Overtime. Union~saysthatheagreeswiththeconceptthata Schedule6~loyeeisnotentitledtoavertime~Article13but saysthatwertimeasdefined inArticle13.2 isrestrictsdonlyto that Article and that for any Article &her than 13 we can consider a mregeneric~ofthewordarertime. Eiethengcesonto saythatsimethegriwor~srqularworkday, was 7 l/4 hems or9 hoursasthecasemyhe, -Sheworked inexcess ofthcseamounts, thatcanbeomsidexedwertim. Unioncounzeldwelopedanewtenn for this overtime and called it n-tory wartime" by which he mant that the mplcyeeworks thetimabutdoes not get paid for it, hmever, it may still have aneffect on &her entitlemmtswithinthe Agmxmnt. In support of that allegation, theunion relies on F&c&t -7- (Draper 275/82) which was a case involving the entitlement of a z+kbdule 6 emplayeetotimeQ-editswfiiletravelling~underArticle 23. Inthatcase,itwasheldthattheempl~~wasentitledtOtime cnxlits~atpgel3thefollowimjquoteappaars. Vo addrees amther aspectoftheissue,wearenot persuaded thatbecause Article 7.3 applies tcthe grievor, Article 23 doesmt;wedonotconsider that those two articles are incmpatible. If the intention of the parties to the collective agrementwasthatArticle23 wculdnotapplyto Schedule6 enployeeqthearticleitselfisthe logicalvehicle forthatppxe. If suchwas the intention,wewculdeqecttoseeinthearticle lampagethatwxldeitheraffimits inap@icabilityto suchemplcpes ormke altermtiveprwisicms applicabletcthemas in Article 13 and Article 19. In short, we wculd requirethatintentiontcbeamvqedin unequivocal and definitive language rather than havirqtobainferredbyref- to Article 7.3." Inotherwcrds, unioncounsel says that because Article 17.1.1 dces not ~l~Schedule6~loyees,~shcPrldMtreadirrtotheArticlesuch an exclusion. Hcn.fever,thisBoardfeel~thatFawcettis d.istbqui&able on the follawing basis: a) ~Boazdf~in~~thatMr.~~~nolmallyworked7 l/4 hours a day. However,inthiscase,hcwever,alcokatthe .grievor'stimesheetsinaicatesnosuchregularityinthathishaursof work vary greatly. Itcmldnotbesaidthatthegrievcramsistently worked 9 l/4 or 9 hcurs per day: b) IntheFawcettcase,theRmdheldthatitwouldmtbe rwlistictoomzludethatMr. Fawcettauldamtrolhis mnwcrk hours Mr. Fahxxttwas responsible for inspcting amstmction sites -8- andassuchhehadtobepresentatcertaint~,likewfienconcrete wasbeingpcxm33. Inthepresentcase,thewidenosisclearthat generdLlyspeaking,thegrieMrcaildanddidgethisawnhours,and oailahaveworkedall~~tanlsleptalldayifhepreferred, subject tab&q available for the aaasionalmati.ngwithotherpeqIle. 0) Article 23 does not make reference to the tenn "Wertime" but rather talks about Wne spent travelling outside 0fbmAinghours~~. InsofarasaSchedule6~layeeisnoterrtitledtowertimeunder Article13, this Board feelsthatitwculdbe illogical to readthe term "wertimd' in Article 17.1.1 in a different context along- linesofwhatunicnccumelcall&"~tcrywertima". Tlxerefore, it follaJs that because a Sohedule 6enployeecannotwork wertimeinthesewethatnoneofthetimehewarksisw~wertime, thenitisimpossibleforhimtoworkmJrethan2hourswertime. on thatbasisalmetheBoardwcUlddisallaithegrievance, hcmver,this Boardf~sitisimportanttogo~therestofArticle17soas togive smaguidanceto the parties. 2. Cmetheenployeehasshcimthathehashurkedmorethan2 hoursw&Am!a,healsomst&cWmattheS2hcurswertime imnadiatily followed his schxluled hours of work. This inplies that theenplcyeamsthavehads&&ul~hours ofwork. Thewidence baforeus inthisgri- irdicatesthatthisirdividualdidncthave scheduledhoursofworkinanytruesenseofthexnzd. Hewasreqired to~rk361/4hoursperweek~hecouldchoosethetimeframein ~~to~rkthose361/4haursaccordingtohisawnschedule. When -9- cnelooksthmughExhibit#4,whicharethetbkasheetssutmittedby him,wesee~~clearlythatxrmedaysheworkedveryl~periodsof timeandthenthefollawingdayhe~dworkashortperiodoft~ buthemdesureanaconsisbntbasisthathewxk&themininm36 l/4 hems. 'Iherefore,eveniftheEcardweretofindthatheworked .w~,itwarldfindthathedidnatworktheavertimeafterhis scheduledhours ofworkbecausencixdys&eduledthegriwor~shours othex than himelf. l%e inplication of the tern %chedulsd hcurs of wor~~mstrelatetomanagement imposbga scheAleontheemploye% nattheanplayeehinselfs~lychoosingwhateverhaurshewants. 3. Fu&henmre,inoxdertcbaentitledtcamealallawance under Article 17.1.1, the employes must show that he did not receive notification of the re&mmnt to work such avertim prior to the end ofhispreviouslyscheduledshift. Agaiqwehavetheptilemofthe definition of 8~wertii&~ and ~$reviously scheduled shift" but wre than that,thisfurther~seemsto~lythatinordertoqualify forthemeal allcwance mnagemntmstinstmcttheeqlcyeewithina certain time frame, that is, prior to the endhispreviously scheduled shiftthathehastoworkovertbe. Inthis situation, there is 110 widencewhatscever thatthegriworwas werinstructedpriortotheerdofthepreviouslyscheduledshiftthat hehadto~rkwertime,lather,thewi~seenstobethathe i@icitly felttbatinordertogetthejob~hehadto~rk certainhcursardhehm%edtiteverhcuzittmk. - 10 - Frcwthislastrq&emnt, thatis,nonctificationwithinacertain timefranqitcanbeclear1yseenthattheIxnpose0fthismza.l all-&mist0 cmpsmsatemployeesfortheina5nfenienceof having their schechilesthrawnoffduetomanag~'s actions. If the pmpoee of the Article was s&ply tc axpensateeqhyes5 formzals thattheywouldxmallyhaveathcm,thentherewouldbeno etc build inthepruvision of short notification. Inother hvrds,ifmanagementtellsanemployes2daysin advancethatheis goingtohavetowDrkavertimethenthe~l~~isnoterrtitledtoa rEalall- This is consistent with the purpcse behind Article 17.1.1, which is tc cxiqmsateanployees,~,becauseof~te noti&ofthezqbrmMztoworkextendedhcux,willincuranextra ~that~ywouldnothaveinauredhadtheyhadadequate notification of the obligation to work extm&d hcurs. Inthegrievor's situatim, nosmhneedarisesbecausehe is theone wfiodetermines~~ornothehastoworkovertimeorextratimeand healoneistheonewfiodetermineswfwthattimehastobespent. WPlereanemplcyeedetehnesh.iscwnhcursthentmallowamml allowanceinvitesabsebecausean employee axldeasilyre-arrangehis wertimesothatcnedayhaworksinexcess of2hcusandonthenext dayhedcesmtworkanyovertim. Sincethisisa~item,itislogicaLthat~g~tshouldbe abletoarrange~wrkfo~insuchawaysoastodecrsasethese extzap3yments. Therefore, ifxmnagfmenthadtherespcnsibilitytc anargethegrievor~shouq theyanildarrangethem insucha fashion - 11 - soasto minimizethennsal allm. Hcwever,wherewehavea situationwherethegrievorsetshisownhours, it is inconsistent for himtobeentitledtoammlallcxmme Tdlmhehasthe~tomte his ownentitlement. 4. ll~nextpmvisionrtquims thatuleeS!p1oyee%hal1be reimhrsed for the ccet of one meal tc $4.00". Manag5llent's ccunsel takes the pcsition that the word Veimbursed" *lies not that the eqkyee is sin@y given $4.00 whether he eats a meal or not, but rathertheemplayeeis~toincuran~andthenheis reimbursea . Tl-Ls BcanA agrees with that proposition. That position is reinforcedbythe fact that the $4.00 isnotasetanmntbutrather the word %o" inplies that tha $4.00 is a mximmamlthe7xforethe employee would receive less if he did nut sperd $4.00 ard that he must .- sukmitreceiptstoprovetheexpeMiture. Thisisalsoomsistentwith the formuseAbytheen@oyer (seaExhibit 3#) intichthegrievor filedhis claim foramal allcwance. Wt form has the following statementccntainedinit: MIcertifytheabvef2peme5wereincurred by me per attached original receipW*. Thegrievortestifiedatnotimeeitherinexamination inchief or --tionasto- orncthehadactuallyincurredany expense. However, asthismayhaves~lybaenanoversight, we indicatedtothepartiesattheendofthe~~thatintheevent thatourdecisionturnedonwhetherornatevidencehadbeenledasto theactual incurringoftheexpmses,wexculdgivethepartiesan ~rhmitytcintrcduceevid~cnthatparti~arissue. However, -l2- giventhatthisFmzdfindsthattherearemremmreasons for dfmying thisgriemnce, it ismtnecesmqtchearevidencemwhetherornct theS%@Jyeeinaured~~. 5. Eveniftheemployeepassesdlloftheabavecriteria,heis stillnotentitledtothe $4.00rei&mmmmtif, eitierfreemeals are ~i~,whichwasnotinthisclaseor,~where~~loyeeisbeing cmqensatedfornkz&cmscpneotherbsis.~ %eevidenceis ~v~thathadthegriarorsutmnittedan~accountwith receiptsin aamdaxe with Article 17.2.5 then he would have been paid for his dbmer expmseslikatheotheremployee5were. Ihegrievor, having fullknmledge of thataltemativepclicy, decided not to submkt such a claim and no evidence was led as tc why he made that decision. Therefore, itwould~thatthe employerdid~provide an alternative means for being amqmsatedan3tbreforemmagementcounselargues thatthe~~aFpliffisothatthegrieMrisnotentitledtohis $4.00 u&r Article 17.1.1. Unionmmselaquesthatbyuseofthe wrdsVheenployeeisbeing cnngmsaMvg that it is inapplicable to thegrievorbecausehemsnct in facts0 capensaMandthatthe puposeofthisclauseistoprwentdoublerecmery. Inessence, Unioncanwlsaysthatthegrievor~dhavehadthe~i~of either dloadng the $4.00 allmame rnrler Article 17.1.1 or the greater all-whichwe ID&E&X& to be $16.00 for dinner tier Article 17.2.5. IheEcardfindsthatmanagemenVsaqumntismxepersuasive inthatitgivesmanagement am.Inotthe enplcyeeule~righttc - 13 - I cmpensateits employees formal allowances in one of the following three ways: a) Prwide fnzemedls; b) l?e+hne up to $4.00 for a meal; Cl ccanpensate mals on saane other basis mier Article 17.2.5. Inthisparticularsituatiantheemplayer,forwhatever~reason, decided thattheapprcpriatewayof cmpensatimg e@oyaes wastc utilize their discretion u&r Article 17.2.5 to pmvide up to $16.00 for dinner allcmncesqmnprovisionofapprcpriatereceipts. Thegrievorsimply failed for same inexplicable xeasontoapply, likehis co-wrkers did, for this reimbursement . Sinzthe~loyee~i~ly~ofthecorrectprocedure, inthathe msadvis@ofitbyaxmm,theonlypossiblereason thatthisBoard can think of a.5 tc &y he wanted tc wly under Article 17.1.1 is becausehefelthisentitlementunderthat~~wasnatbasedon havingactuallyincurr&anexpense. Inotherwords,hefeltthathe was entitledtohis $4.00 ifhewrkdmxethan 2 hours and could pocket~-=~wthereby ampmsat&hkelfinscmemrginalwayfor theextrahcursthathewrked. AsthisEkxrdhassaidonafew occasimsinthe ccurseofthisdecision, thegriemrhas misinterpz&edormisunderstoodtheplrposeofArticle17 as itisnct ~topmvidethe~layeewithadditi~payment forwrkjnglate, rather,itistore~himforan~thatheathezwisewould ncthavehadtc incur. - 14 - Therefore, for all the I~~BXIS refecndtointhisawazdthegrievance is deni&. Wtedthis 3Othdayof -June, 1988.