HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-1914.Barnes.96-12-18EMPLOY& DE LA CQURONNE
Lx LtwlARD
COMMISSION
RiGLEMENT
DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WES’I: SUITE 2100, TORONTO ON M5G lZ8
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ON) M5Q lZ8
BETWEEN
BEFORE
FOR TEE
GRIEVOR
FOR THE
EMPLOYER
DE
TELEPHONE/TEkiPHONE : (416) 326-7388
FACSlMlLE/T~LriCoPrE : (416) 326-1395
GSB # 1914/96
OPSEU # 963061-4,963066-86
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
TEE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
OPSEU (Barnes et al)
- and -
Grievor
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of the Solicitor General &
Correctional Services) Employer
R.J. Roberts Vice-Chairperson
G. Leeb
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
D. Chiro
Coordinator, C.A. Negotiaions
Management Board Secretariat
HEARING November 19, 1996
1
AWARD
In this case, the grievors, who were scheduled to work as essential workers during the strike,
claimed sick pay for shifts they missed on the evening of March 10 and morning of March 11,
1996. Each grievor missed one shift.
The employer refused to pay sick leave to the grievors, claiming that they had not been ill but
had been participating in an illegal strike. An Order of the Ontario Labour Relations Board dated
March 11, 1996, was entered into evidence. This document ordered into effect a memorandum of
settlement between the employer and the union, in which the union, inter alia, acknowledged
“the in failing to provide for essential services and emergency back-up staff on the evening of
March 10, 1996 and the morning of March 11, 1996 it breached the essential services and
emergency services protocol of the Essential Services Agreement.”
The grievors, the employer noted, were among the staff who participated in this event. This
showed that they were not ill as they contended, but were instead participating in the event that
2
led to the foregoing acknowledgement of the union. As a result, it was submitted, they were not
entitled to sick pay.
I agree. The grievors allegedly were sick for only the shifts in the time period during which the
union acknowledged that “it failed to provide for essential services and emergency back-up
staff.” This striking coincidence leads to a strong inference that they were not ill but using claims
of illness to support the job action acknowledged by the union.
The grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario, this 18th day of December, 1996.