HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-2584.Czekierda.89-05-10EMPLOYESDELA COURONNE,
cRowNEMPLoYEEs DE L’Otu.4IRIO
CQMMISSION DE
SEITLEMENT REGLEMENT
DES GRIEFS
Between:
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
TRE CROWN R8lPLOYRES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
OPSEU (Czekierda)
Grievor - and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community and Social Services)
Before:
APPRARING FOR
THE GRIEVOR:
APPEARING FOR
THE EXPLOYER:
HEARING:
EW
J. Forbes-Roberts -
F. Collom
Vice-Chairperson
- Member
G. Hilley - Member
P. Chapman
Counsel
Gowling 6 Henderson
Barristers & Solicitors
loyer
W. Emerson
Employee Relations Officer
Human Resources Branch
Ministry of Community and Social Services
July 4, 1988
The grievor, MS. A. Czekierda is employed as a Residential
Counsellor 2 at the Oxford Regional Centre ("the Centre") in
Woodstock, Ontario. At the time of the grievance Ms. Crekierda held several positions with the Union, amongst them being local
president, chairman of the Health and Safety committee, and
member of the Employee Relations, Employee Assistance Programme
and Grievance committes. Obviously there are meetings held for
these various committees, and sometimes they occur during a
member's regularly scheduled shift. In addition to these meetings
occasionally the Union Executive meets with the Centre's Adminis- trator to discuss specific issues. The issue before this Board
is vhether the grievor should have been paid for time spent
attending a Local Executive meeting on November 4th, 1987.
In approximately nay of 1987 a. story appeared in .the
nevspaper regarding a rumoured plan of the Rinlstry of Community
and Social Services ("the Ministry") to close all mental
retardation facilities over a five year period. In her capacity
as Local president the grievor contacted the Centre's Administra-
tor vith an eye to setting up a meeting to discuss the implica-
tions of this "Multi-Year Plan*. It vas finally agreed that the Administrator, Mr. Hevitt, vould address the issue at one of the
regular monthly Local Executive meetings (see appendix A). Initially the grievor had rejected this proposal stating that
these meetings vere for union members only, but ultimately she agreed and hr. Hevitt attended on NOV63kS rlth, 1987. The
meeting took place on the Employer's premises.
On November 4th the grievor vas scheduled to vork the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. ehift. On November 2nd she approached her Supervisor
and secured permission to be absent for approximately tvo and
one-half hours in order to attend the meeting. She did attend
and vas subsequently docked three hours pay, the actual length Of time that she vas absent from her vork station.
Under cross-examination the grievor agreed that the Multi-
Year Plan vas the only topic discussed at the meeting, that there vere persons. present vho vere employed at facilities other than
the Centre, and that the minutes of the meeting vent only to Union members.
The Union took the position that the grievor should have been paid. Because she remained on the Employer's premises she vas technically "at vork " for her full eight hour shift. In the alternative if the meeting vas not actually "vork" it vas a duty related activity for vhich she vas entitled to be paid. Finally it vas merely an accident that the meeting occured on the same night as a regularly scheduled Executive meeting. Because it took place on the Employer's
premises and given the subject matter it much more ClOSE?ly resembled an Employee Relations
%orauittee meeting for vhich the grievor had alvays been paid in the past.
The Employer Yrgued that the meeting vas not actual vork or
-3
I
-3-
even duty related. Attendance at the meeting had not been
mandatory for the grievor, and indeed had she failed to attend
the Employet vould not have been in a position to discipline her
for refusing a vork assignment. Nor vas this an Employee Rela- tions Committee meeting. Rather it was argued that it was simply
a regularly scheduled monthly Local Executive meeting vhich the
Administrator had attended at the Union’s invitation.
We aqree vith the Employer’s characterization of the
November 4th meeting. The correspondence generated by the
grievor herself thanks Mr. Hevitt for II.., attending our Local Executive Meeting...” (see appendix B). The fact that persons
not employed by the Centre were in attendance (presumably at the Union’s invitation), and that the minutes vere not provided to the Administrator puts the lie to the suggestion that it was
actually an Employee Relations Committee meeting.
There does not appear to be any precedent for paying
employees to participate in Local Executive meetings held during working hours. The grievance is therefore dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 10th day of nay. 1989.
.I. Forbes-Roberts, Vice-Chairperson
Collom, Member
1
. n d A pp- rlc
.
October 5, 1987.
m- To: Aucla czeklerda,
President, Local 117.
lbnk you. for your Octuber &d telephone response’ to my orlgiml
mew of June I, 1987, wherein I offered to discuss the Multi-Year
Plau with your &ecu&e Uttee. Aa I indicated, I would be
pleaaed to meet an7 evening of any one of the fol2oprln& dates:
-October 21, 22. 23. 28. or 29.. Alternstivelp, I wQl be pleased.
to attend tba November 4 meeting. If I hear nothing further from
you, I uill assuri8 the November 4 meeting data is conflamed.
I loak fomard to meting once again’ tith the Exacutive Mambers.
I have found prerioua meetinga to be very helpful end informative.
.
&LA
afitdo Public S&n Employees Union
MT. John Hewitt,
MS. Carol Orphanacas.
Local 117 would like to thank you in attending our Local
Executive Meeting this evening. We appreciated the fact
that you came in on your already hectic schedule to speak
to us about the Multi-Yeas Plan.
Your co-operation in this endeavour yaemuch appreciated
by all. We hope to invite you back to speak on other
issues that'affect our members and the whole of the
facility.
MS. Alicia Cxekierda
President of Local 117
C.C. LEC
tIEAD OFFICE: 1901 YONGE STREET TORONTO, ONTARIO M4S 225 PHONE: (416) 482-7423 I