Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-0493.Gallagher.96-01-09" , ONTARIO- CROWNEMPLOYEES "GRIEVANCE'1111SETTlEM~NT. .BOARD EMPlovtsDELACOORONNE' DEL'ONTARIO COMMISSIONDE REGLEMENT DESGRIEFS ,\ / 180DUNDASSTREETWEST,SUITE2100.TORONTO.ONM5G1Z8 180, FiUEDUNDASOUEST,BUREAU2100.TORONTO(ON)M5G1Z8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE:(416)326-1388 FACSIMILE/TELECOPIE:(416)326-1396 ,I GSB:#,493/94 OPSEU:#94B844' INTHEMATTEROFANARBITRATION Under THECROWNEMPLOYEESCOLLECTIVEBARGAININGACT Before THEGRIEVANCESETTLEMENTBOARD BETWEEN OPSEU(Gallagher) -and·- TheCrowninRightofontario (MinistryofCorrectionalServices).'- Grievor Employer BEFORE FORTHE GRIEVOR M.Watters N.'Roland.- Barrister&Solicitor vice~Chairperson FORTHE EMPLOYER HEARING ( D.Costen ,Counsel LegalServicesBranch Manageme~tBoard Secretariat ( ! April12,1995 May30,1995 November13,14,1995 -1- 1994. Thegrieverassertedthereinthathehadbeen unjustl~dismissedfromhispositionasCook2attheGuelphCorrectional Centn:andasked,byW,3yc,{sett:lemE'ntdE~!::;iI"~d,thathebeI~eins~tatedto suchpositionwithfullredress. Atth~outsetofthehearing,counselfortheEmployeradvisedthat intendedtocont.e{:;t t~earbitrabilityofthe jurisWictionalgrcun~s.,He indicated~however,thatargument.ontheissue wouldbedefer~edun~il afterthepresentationofevidence.TheUnion,c\s a consequence~thenproceededtoleaditsevidencethroughth~grievorand Mr.CharlesSharkie,anotherCoOkatth~GuelphCorrectionalCentre.At theconclusionoftheUnion'scase,counselfortheEmployeradvisedthat hewishedto motionforanon~suit.Heaskedthat h~bepermittedtoso movewithouthavingtoelectwhethertoc~ll evidence.Thisrequestwas premisedont~e pr?cticeadoptedbytheGrievanceSettlementBoardin Fal?I~,218/89(Fishe~)and·inGibson,Patterson,319,320/93(Barrett)• TheUnianopposedtherequest.Afterheal~ingandc6nsideringthe--, .l~especti vesubmis~:;icms onthispnJcedLlr':~l qw?stion,this Vice-'''Chairperscm gavethefollo~ingoral ruling: "Irecognizethat,generally,incivi.lproceedingsa~par·ty motioningfarnan-suitisrequiredtomakeanelectionas towhethertheyintendtocallevidencebeforesuchmotion willbeentertained.Anu~ber ofreasonsforthis~equirement arefoundintherelevantjurisprudence,includingtheneed toensurethattheproceedingsremainfairtobothparties andtoav~idtheprovisionofabene-fitOl~advant'::lgetoone partyinthecourseofthecaseinsuchawayastocompromise theneutralityoftheArbitratororBoard.Irecognizefurther thcl.tt.heGI~ievCilnc:eSl:?ttlementBoardin E..S}l:.S?.!:.andin~ibso["t~... P'Cltt,,§rsqn.hasarJoptf:=dadi++el'''ent~H"oc,-?rJL:ln:~.TheproceclL.lre. servestoexpeditetheprocesswithrespe~tto motionsfor non-suitand,atthesametime,removesanypotentialprejudice oradvantagethroughnotprOVidingreasonsforthede~ial of .~, ., -2- thenon-suitinthatevent. I Afterconsideringtherespective'submissions,Ihavebeen .persuadedtoadopttheab6vepracticehere.TheEmployer willbepermittedtoarguethenon-suitmotion~it~outbeing puttoitselectionastowhethertocallevidence.IfI determinethatth~re,isapri~afaciecasetomeet,theparties ~"iIIbeSOF.\dvi!:;edwithout)'''e2\Son.stherefor." TI"H:;:>,GuelphCorrectianal ope)r'atl":clbytheMihistry 0+ CorrectionalServices,isamediumsecuritycorrectional-faci1ity for" ihmatesserving5~ntencesof uptot~o{2)yearslessaday.Ithas'l::v'JO thes~beinga~orrection~l centreandanassessmentand (G.A.T.D).Sinceatleast 1978t~roughtoJuly 1, th~foodservicespr6gramattheCentrehasbeencontractedouttoa series6fsubcontractors.Thecontractswereforfixedterms,most ~ recentlyforperiodsoftwo(2)years.Towardsth~endofeachterm, duringthisperiod,theMinistryinvitedtender~.Thefoodservices contractwouldsubsequentlybeawardedtothesuccessfulbidder. In1'1.::\y1990,thegrievorwashiredasafull-timeCook2byacompany. calledParnellFoods(Parnell).This·companyheld~he foodservices contractattheGuelphCorrectional Centreatthat~ime andcontinued'to dosountilAu~ust31,1990.Theactualhiringofthegrievo~wasdoneby Mr.E.MifsudwhowasthentheFdodServicesManager attheCent~e for ( ThegrieVor,inthisperiod,was Ip-aid.bychequesissued by/tile aforementinnedcompany. A companycalledNLltritional \ l'1i::\naqementServi CE'S(1\1Llt1~i'ti ona1) successfullybid.forthefoodservicesprogramattheGuelph.Correctional CentreandenteredintoacontractwiththeMinistrytoprovide.such programfortheperiodfromSeptember 1,1990toAugu~t31,1992. 'company'stend~rddcuments'werefiledasexhibit3.Its~ubsequent This lette)~ ·. ..:...3- ofacceptancedated,August20,1990wasfiledasExhibit4. Aswasthepracticewiththe foodservicesprogramabtheGuelph w~re givenhotieesofterminationbythe CorrectionalCentre,allthe ) location,includin~thegrievor, employeesofPa~nell wOI~kingatthClt cornp<!:l,nypl'"j.OI'''t'othee:·:pil'-C:lt.ionofit.secmt.ractwiththeMir"d~,try.\ThE- alongwithmostoftheseother~mployees~wassubsequentlyhired byI\lutl"'ition.:d..Itwastheg~ievor'sevidencethathewashiredasaCook 2followinganinterviewwithMr.JohnBennetto,VicePresidentof o:\ndone(1) otherrepresentativeofthecompany.He acknowledged that~atthetime,herealizedthatthesetwo(2)individuals ~ere not'employeesoftheMinistryof/Ce~rectionalService~but,rather, wereactingasagentsofNutritionalManagementService~~Thetermsand conditionsofthegriever'semploymentwithtt'liscompanywereoutlined in alettertoM~.Gallagher \ fromMr.BeMnetto datedAugLlstThis cJocLlmentwasfiledase:·:hibit Therewasnobreakinthegrievoro o 's employmentinthetransitionfrom Par~ellto'NLltri'l:i.anal.Inthe gl'·ievol~'swords,<:111thatchangedwas IIthenameonthecheque". AtsomepbintintheFall of1(]90, l"'ll~.Mifsud,whon'?mained attl"le instit~tionas an'employeeofNutritional,assignedthegrieVorto~6~k in thekitchert~reaof G.A.T~U.speak{ng."the"grievor1,'" ':l5sisteel'w:i.t.rlthepreparationandservingofinmatemeals.HealsohE-'Ipsd withthemonitoringanddirectionofinmatesbeingtrainedinthefood area.Th~grievor~eferredtothispositionas"Cook- Super-vi S~OI~". Thegrievorinj~redhis shoulderwhileworkingonthisjob. ultimately,ledtoanabsencefromworkfortheperiodJune ~ to'October1991.ThegrievorreceivedWq.r.kers'"CJ;lmpensc:ltionActbenefi ts~ ""t\ .. 4- duringthisworkrelatedabsence.HesUbseq~entlyreturnedtothework placearoundtheb~ginningof October1991.·Un·fortunc:\t.ely~he was; merjical1yunfittopeY·fonnt.hedutiese:-:pe'ctedinhis'fonnerposition. ~utritionalaccommodated thisinabilitybytransferringthegrievortothe les~physically'demandingFoodServicesHelperpositionintheStaff Ca·fi?t(0)I'·:i,,,\.Whilethispositionwasfull-time,itprovidedalesserwage ratethantheformerjobinG.A.T.U.Asaconsequerice, ,,"eCi?:!:vF2c1 awagesupplement Compensa~ioriBoard.It:1·(.. •":> clearfromthegrievor'sownevidencethatheappliedforbenefitsasan employeeofNutritional.Itwouldseemfromthedocumentationfiledthat '.theWorkers'C6mpensationBoardtreatedNutritionala&theemployerfor :itspurposes. WhentheMinistryrequestedtendersforthefoodservicesprogramat theGuelphCQrrectional Centrein 1992,thesuccessfulbidderwasDalmar FoodsLimited(Dalmar).Thetenderdocuments,materialtothisdispute, werefiledasexhibit 5•.ThesubsequentAgr~ementdated 0ugust21~1992 bE~twe(?nthe Ilvjin~lstryand DellmarltJas'filedase:-:hibit-6.Theagreement coveredtheperiodfromSeptember optiontorenewfor.athirdyear. 1,1992toAugust 31.\1994withthe •J / an"Application'....f11F Ol~Emp.1.oyme:pt .Thi£7..c;\ppl-ica.tiondate.d?klgust4,1\?92was'hIedase:-:hibit8. appliedthe~einfortwo(2)posit.icms:narnE?ly,(i)Sta·ffDiningRDom,i:."'Ind (ii,)G~A.TaU.~~itche~Codk2~Thesewere.t.hepositionshehadpreviously filledwithNutritional•ThegrievorlistedbothNutritionalandParnell .asformeremployersforpurposesofthisapplication. Thegrievortestifiedthathewascall.ediritoMr~.Mifsud~soffice \ .' -5- withintwo(2)tothree(3)·daysafterthesubmissionofhis~pp1ication. wasuhlikelyhewoul~berehired"t)f;?Cc\Lls.eoftt··le~~..C..B.thing"..The grieverstatedfurtherthathewastoldbyMr.Mifsudthataletterfrem hi Sdoctol'"(H>O%)IImightbeof Thegrievor,a~acensequence~securedanotefromDr..D.J. Hill,hisfamilyphysician. filedasexhibit9,read: ThisnetedatedAugust14,1?92,whichwas / "Thismanhc:\Sad11~onicshoul(jel~injL\l~ybuthei~;;neverthele'::is wi11ingttjtl~ytodohisjobthebesthecan.II Exhibit9was,subsequentlygiventoMr.Mifsud.Approximatelyone(1) weeklater,thegrievorwasagaincalledtotheManager'soffice.The grievoriestifiedMr.Mifsudtol·dhim,interalia,thatDalmarwouldbe restructuringth~foodservicesprogramandth~t hewastobePlaidoff witharf-.?call".Heffic\intained,incross--e:·;amination,thatthislc:\l'iguage hadbeenusedtodescribehisworkstatus. Thegrievor'slastdayofwork~ttheGuelphCorrectionalCentrewas AUQust31,1992.wasthefinaldayofthecontract betweenNutritionalandtheMinistry.Atthetime,.hewasstillonlight dutiesintheStaffCafe~eria. Thegrievor~as,n~versubsequentl~hired., asser-ted.that:--other-os,vIitAoLttequi.valent experience,werehiredbythatcompanytoperformworkwhichhewas capableofcompleting.Onthesomewhatlimitedevidencepresented·onthis point,itwould:seemthatDalmardidinfactrestructuretheworkplace. Theextentofthisrestructuring 15difficulttogauge.Itappec:\redttj encompassareductioninthenumberofJuniorCoqksfrc~seven.(7)tofi·ve (5)plusthecreationoftwo(2) newDieti.tianpositions.Th.eparties i' ...~. .. ~:;tipulatecltlJt.hef",lctt.hat,whilecey··t.Cl.inPcU"t·-·t.imepositionswert'" created,thegrievor'spositionwasnottheh~liminated. " AsiMdica~ed.above,Mr.CharlesSharkie~ave evi.c1enceonbehial·fof ( theUnion. M~.SharkiefirststartedtoworkattheGuelphCorrectional CentreinDecember1989whenhewashiredbyParnellasaCook1.He Wc:lS l~ter hi.redbyNutritionalinDecember 1991followinganabsencefromwork duetoinjury.MI~•SharkiewasdismissedfromemploymentinDecember ThematerialpartofMr.Sharkie"sevidencefocusedoMadiscussion heallegedlyhadwith·Mr~,Mifsudinthelatt.er"sofficeinJUly1992.Mr. Sharkiestatedthat,atthatjuncture,h~wasfillinginfortheJunior AssistantManagerwhowasthenawayonv~cation.It,washisrecollection that,ontheoccasionini·ssue!.hec.'1ndMr.Mifsudwerediscussingwhich employeeswould'likelybehiredbythenewcompanycomingintodeliver 'food sel~vices.Inthiscontext,Mr.SharkietestifiedtheManagersaid that,withthecontractforfoodservices upf~r reriewal,itwouldbehis chancetogetridofthe~rievorbecausehewasonW.C.B.1'1eassertedl'1r. Mif~ud indicatedthat.hecouldnothaveanewcompanytakebnanemployee~ / suchasthegrievor,asitwouldbecomeresponsibleforhimintheeveni l'1r.,Sharl·deindicc:\tedthat·l-'~e askedMt-.I"ltf~Ud ifhecould Itwasthethrustofh~sevidentethattheManagerrepliedthat hedidhewasgoingtodoit,::\nyway.Itwas,'-.';c: ,...~ further eVidenceth~tMr.Mif~udexpressedtheviewthatamaleshouldnot be runningth~StaffCaf~?t.el~ia.Incro5s~examinati6n,t.hi.switness act~allyoccurred•.Hebelieveditwasjustpriortothereceiptofthe -----~---'--------~--~--------- i' .. -7- notic<;:!so'f terminationforwardedtoallemployeesbyNutrition~l expiryofitscontract. filedanapplicationforcertificationwiththeOntarioLabourRelations Boardjinrespectofall oftheNutritionalemployeesworkinginGuelph, Dnti::"d'"io.·This,nCl'tl..ll'"B.lly,includedi:d.l ofthecompany'semployeesworking inthefoodservicesprogram'attheGuelphCorrectionalCentre.The a{orementionedapplicationwasnotopposed,byNutritional. however,oppose~bytheOntarioPublicServiceEmployees'Uni 011(OPSEU). It\IoJasOPSEU'spositionthattherewasa"transfer-"withinthemeaning6f theCrownT~ansfers'Actwhen Nutritionalsigneditscontractwiththe Crowntopro~idefoodservicestotheCentreandthat,accordingly,the subcontractorinhririt~dthe~ivil servicecollectiveagreementbetwee~ OPSEUandth~Cr6wn. I Itwasthepositionof,theUFCWUthattherewasno transfel~withi,ntheme,,:H,ingof,theActand,inthealternative,that,OPSEU hadlongsinceabandonedwhateverbargainingrightsitmayhavepossessed., OnDecember7,1992,th~OntarioLabour RelatiortsBoardrenderedits decisionandconfirmedthattheapplicantUFCWUhadtherigh~torepresent i theemployeesofNutritionalworkingattheGuelphCorr~ctionalCentre. ItfurtherdeterminedthatOPSEUhadabandonedanyclatmtobargaining ! I'·iqhts~. Asofthedateofthisdecision,DalmarhadreplacedN0tritional asthesubcontractorforthefoodservicesprogramattheCentre.'The Board'sreasohing,asreflectedinthedecisionofAlternateChairR.O. t'. MacDowell,isrefel'-e'ncedingl"'eatel~detai1bE;,low. In eal~ly1993,Dalm":·H-e>:el~c:i.sf:'?dthetC'?I'''minationclaus.,?in,its AgreementwiththeMinistry Iandgavenoticefhatitwouldnolongerbe !- ~. I .. -8 providingthefood J serviceprograminrespectoftheGuelphCorrectional EffectiveJuly1,1993,theMi~istryofCorrectionalServices thefoodserviceaprogramattheCentreandhiredallthe whowerepreviouslyemployedbyDalm~r.Allthese :incjividL.lal~:5I-'Jel~'eappointed ar-5'pLlbl:i.csf21~vant::3PI..II~sL.lantto the!:.ubl.L<;:.. thefefore,coveredbythecollectiveagreement betweenOPSEUandManagement.~oardof Cabinet.'Tobeclec:\r~'thegJ'''ievol~ wasnotsoappointedfor,asstatedabove,hehadneverbeenhiredby Dc:dmar-.Hehad~easedwork~t theCent~eas ofAugust31,1992. cameintoeffect. follows: Therelevantprovisi6nsofthelegislationareas (2) (1(» Anindividualisnotc(:Jnsidt'?redtobeacivil servantunlessheorshehasbeen~xpressly appointedassuch bytheCommissionor bythe Lt~utenantGovernorinCouncilonthecertificate ofthe'-Comm:i.ssiem. Anindividualisnotconsid~redto beapublic servantunlessheorshehasbeenexpresslyappointed as's~ch-bythe Li~utenaritGovernor inCouncil,thS Commission,aministeroradesigneeofaminister_ Anindividualwhoisemployedinthese~yiceofthe Cr6wnisnotconsideredtobeaCrownemployeeunless theindividualhasbeenexpresslyappointed~ssuch bytheL:i.eLltenar",'t[~Dvel'T,ol'-inCounei1.theC'ommission".,.I oraminister.. Intheabsenceof",\1'1 E>:pl'-es:,s5appointmento-r anindividual asacivilservant,publicservantorCrownemployee, theindividual'sappointmentshallnotbeinferredsolely fromthecircumstancesofhisorheremployment. Thissectionisdeemedtohavecomeintoforceonthe18th dayofDecember,1991. Thegrievor'sentitlementtovoeatidnalrehabilitationservices,and presumablytocontinuingbenefits, ... -9-( ceasedasDfFebruary21,Thi sr.h~ci~:;i em, doc~mentedinaletter from~Boardstafftothegrievor0+thesamedate(r",>:hibit.10),WeiS pr~misedon afindingthattheCook2positionfellwithintheparameters ofthegrievor'smedicalpl"€;)cauti cms.Itappear'son theevidencethat Nutritionalhadpreviously,at·somepoint in 1993,attemptedtoisolatea po':siticln+01'"the"?gri evol~ it,·sother-sitesclosetoLondon, Thisinitiativewasr~jecteddus toth~distancebetweenthejob andth(;:?gri eVDI':"sresldence. filedonApril26,1994. Asnoted,thegrievanceinthisinstancewas Two(2) othermattersarisingfromtheevidencerequirebrief comment.Firstly,l'tisclearfromtheirtestimonythatboththegrievor andMr.Sh~rkieconsideredMr.Mifsudtohavebeenanemployeeinitially ofParnellan~then,lat~r,Neitherwitnessviewedhimas an employee'oftheMinistryduringthepE?r'iodof two.(2) subeontl'-acts.M~.Mifsud.seemedtohaveoccupiedasimilarposition with Dalmarduringthetime 1,,I......offeredthefoodservicesprogramattheCentre. I thegr'iE'vortestifiedastothe.authorityvestedinl'1inist'ry l'1or-especi·fically,hestatedthati'whentheytoldyo'u tDdo ti"'lings,yOLldie!it,noquest.ions F.1:sked".Hereferred,bywayofexample, to ar-equesttochangeamealorpar-t ofameal. thatifsucharequestwasmadebyMinistrystaff, the~rievorindicated ,. hewouldcomplywith sameandnoteitintheoccur-reneebook.Thf:?gl'''ievor-c1c:~i fn£::,d OCcul~l'-ed severaltimes.Similarly~he.assertedthathewould complywithany·dir-ectionfro~theLieutenantofG.A.T.U.ar-isingfromthe latter'sinspectionofthekitchenattheendofshift.the grievormaintainedthat·hecouldnotrefuseanorder-fromcor-rectional ,/ -10- In~ross-examination~he"acknowledgedthat such~.directioncould flowfromsecurityconc~rnscompletely unrelatedto theprovisionoffood~er~ic~s. TheappliC(T:lbl t."?contl~ac::t.ualandst:atutorypl~oviE;i OriSst2\te~" 1.1Inaccordance"withtheCrbwnEmployeesCollectiveBar~ainingAct~ "theOntarioPublicServiceEmployeesUnionisrecognizedasthe exclusive"collectivebargainingagentfor"allpublicservantsother thanperson~whoarenotemployees~ithinthe~eaningof clausef "ofsubsection1ofSection1ofTheC~o0~.EmpioyeesCollective' Bar"ged0ing Act. 1(U 1(3<2) "employ.ee"meansaCrownemployeeasdefinedinthePublic ServiceA~t but"ddesnotinclude••••~ "pubIic"ser"var'lt IImecuisapublicservantasdefinedint"he Public'S(-:"?rviceActand"IIpublicservice"hasa·con':'esponding meii:\ning; Inadditiontoa~yoth~r rightsofgrievanceunderacoll~cti~~ agreement,ane~ployeeclaiming, .1 (c)thathehasbeendLsciplinedordismissedorsuspendedfrom hisemployment\l-lithou"tjustcau.se; mayprocesss"i..lchmatterinaccordancewiththegl;"ievancepr"Qcedure p~6videdinthe~oilectiveagreement,andfailingfinal (jet.f?rminatiemLindersuchproc,edL\I~e,thematterIl)aybe'pJ~ocessed i.neic:cclrda~1Ce~\)i ththeprocedureforfinaldetel~mi nati.onapp1icab1e und~r section19. 1.1MthisAct, IIcivi1sel'·vant."mt?ansaper""sonappointedtotheserviceofthe CrownbytheLieutenantGovernorinCouncilonthecertificate elftheCommissionorbytheCommissiC:lf"l~and"ci\lilser"vice" hasacorrespondingmeaning; "CI'·own"emplcPy'ee"mear',sapE?rSOnemployE1dinthesf:-?r\licecif t"lIeCroltmoranyag'encyoftheCro\.AJn,butdoesnotinclude-an employeeofOntarioHydroortheOntarioNorthlandTransportati~n Commission; ':'.. ',..\', .. IIpublic:ser-Yt~nt"m('~ans,C':\P,"?l"'~5Cln i:\ppointeduridel~thi 5Actto-the serviceoftheC~cwnbytheLieutenantGc~ernorinCouncil,by 'the'CommisF.:.;icln cwbyaminist~?I~,and"publicsE?rvice",h,,;\=5i:~ correspondingmeaning; 6.(1)Whenavacancyexists intheclassifiedservice,thedeputy ministerofthemin~stryinwhichthevacancye~istsshall nominateinwritingfromthelistsofeligiblesofthe Commissionapersontofillthevacancy. (2)TheCCHTlInls!::;ionshc:'I11-appolntthepl:'?I'-scmnominatedundi:?rsubsf7.:'ction· (1)toapositionon~he probationarystaff6+theclassified servicef6rnotmorethanoneyearatatime.R.S.O.1980, c..4Hi,5.'6. 7.TheCommissionshall,if.requestedinwriiingbythe~eputy minister,recommendtotheLieutenantGovernorinCouncilthe appciintmentofapersonontheprobationarystaffofthe ~lass{fiedservice totheregularstaffoftheclas5ifie~, service,andtherecommendationshallbe~ccompaniedby the certificateofqualificationandassignmentoftheCommission. R.S.D•.1980,c.418,s.7. 8.(1)Aministerofanypublicservantwhoisdesignatedinwrit~ng for'thepurposebyhimorher~ay appointforaperiodof,not morethanoneyearonthefirstappointmentandforanyperiod onaMisUb~equen~ap~ointmenta persontoaposition~n the uncl~ssifiedservice inanyministryoverwhichtheminist~r presides. ,(2)Anyappoint.mentmadebyadesigneeundersubsection(1),shallbe deemedto~havebt:~en madebyhisorherminister.'r-:<.S.O.1980, c.418,s.8. 9.A personwhoisappointedtoapositioninthepublic\service ~6r aspecifiedperiodceasestobea publicservantatthe ('?~':piI~a,ti.onofthatperiod.FL5.0.1980,c~418,s.'-7. Counsel fDI~; theEmployersubm,it.tedthatwas inal'-bitr-ab.le.Thissubmissionwaspremised ontwo(2)maingrounds. Firitly,itwasarguedthatthecrievorwasneveran-( employeeofthe Ministrybut,rather,wasanemployeeofthefoodservicesub-contractors ata,llmateri,<:"ltimesoSecondly,itwasfurtherarguedtheUnionwas estoppedfromclaimingthatitpossessedcollectivebargainingrigh-ts sapableofsupportingthe awa~dofaremedytothegrievor. .. 12 Counselc.'u"gued,withrespecttothefirstground,thatthegriever 'wasneveran~mplDyeeoftheMinistry~crpurposEsofthecollective .:;\gr'eememtb~?b'ieenthe UniDnand1"1;:.\nagementBClardofC':;lbinet.H!:'?ini'tially referencedarticle 1.1oftheagreementwhichstatesthattheEmployer I'·€.':'c:oqni~:~esOPSEU a~:~"thef?~,:clL\sivecollective bi::lr'g"lining,:\gent'forall Counselthenreviewedthedefinitionofpublic Readtogether" the~estatutoryprovisionscontemplateanappointmenttotheserviceof ( theCrown.Counselemphasized'thatthegrieverhadneverbeenso i::lppointt:!d,inanexpres~f~shien,onthefactsoJthiscase.!"ie submitted,therefor~,thatthe gJ~ievorcould ; notbe consider-edasan employeeurider-theinstantcbllectiveagr-eement.Additionally,he asser-tedthat,anappointmentasapublicservant,Crownemployeeor-civil servantcouldnotbeinfer-redfr-omthecirc~~stancesof thegrievor-'s emplDyment.Reliancewasplacedonsections 8.1(1)(2)(:3)(10).and(11)of 'theF'Llbl~cS,er-vi ceSt.atut;s'£'LawAmendmentAct!t-_1993inSLlPPOr-tofthis submission.These,pr'ovi sionshavebeenrepl'·oduced':Ibov?\-Counselnoted thattheprohibitionagainstsuchaninferencebeingdrawnwasdeemedto. havecomeintofo~ceonDecember18,f991,wellbeforeth,decisiontaken byDal~ar-nottohirethegrievor-. It,wastheEmployer'spositionthattheUnioncouldnotinvoke orfoundationforjurisdiction.That'--pl'·ovi,sion,inconjLlnctionIrli·th ~-~ection19,providesarbitrationrightstoemployee~, additionaltothose underacollectiveagr-eement,insituationswheretheyclaimtohavebeen " -13 disciplinedordismissedwithoutjustcause.Counselnetedthat~fOI'· the statutf=~,~?mplo'y'€':!emeans"apersonemployedintheservice Itw,:\s his submissionthatthegrieveronthefacts established~and specific~lly becauseof~heabsenc~ofanappoi nt.mE~nt.~couldnotprope~lyclaim employeestatussoastobeentitledtoexercisetherightsaccordedby 1·1•• ..,.. wastheEmployer's~urtherpositionthatthegriever,atall materialtimes~wasanemployeefirstofandthen~later~of NLltl~'itional•Counselarguedthat~fromhisperspective~thefollowing factssupportedsuchaconciusion: the dfthe for andnot thegri eVOI~pet-ceiveljthathewas--anemployee sub~ontractors.InhisapplicationtoCalmar employment,he~ited ParnellandNutritional~ theMinistry,ashispastemployers; Dalmarelectedag~insthiringthegriever.Thereafter grievordealtwithMr.Mifsud,asarepresentativeof Dalm~r~inhiseffortstosecureavailablewerk. thegrievorwasinitiallyhired.toworkforParneliFoods byMr.Mifsud~aParnellemployee; thegrievorw~spaid byParnellforhisservicesandwas ultimatelytermina{edbythatcompanyjust,priortothe 'e~piryoftheircontract; thegrievorwassubsequentlyhiredbyNutritionalfollowing an interview witl"itwo(2)ofitsr:-epresentatiYes.His termsofe~ploy~entwere documentedforhiminalett~r fromNutritionaldatedAugust23~1990(exhibit12); thegri evorwaspi:lidbyNutrit'ionalforhisservicesand waspurportedlY'termin'atedbythemimmediately pl~iorto theexpiryoftheir'contract; the gl~ievorpLu~suedhisWorkers'Compensationcla,imasan employeeofNutritionalandthattompanytreatedhimas suchforpurpose~oftheclaim.Thisincludedthe.offer bfalt~r~ate.~mploymentsubsequent toCalmar"s'succe~sful ·tender·; (iv) (v) (ii i) (ii) (vi:i.) (vi) CounsE'lsubmitted,ont.heabovefacts~thatthegrievor"semployment rel~tionshipthroughoutwaswiththesubcontractorsandnotwiththe Ministry~asclaimed.He",'\rgl.ledthattheseriesef,'subcontractsfOI~the \.. -14 supplyoffoodservicesattheGuelphCorrectionalCentredidnotserveto createanemploymentrelationshipbetweentheMinistryandemployeesof thesubcontractor,sucha~thisgrievor.Inthisregard,counsel mt,:dnt\:dnedthat.theabi 1iotyofI"lini.stl~y pE'uoosclnnel toordertheret.urnof foOdto thekitthen,ortohaveemployeesofthe~ubcontractorremoved institutionforsecurityreasons,didnottransformsuch employeesintoemployeesoftheMinistry.Simplystated,itwasthe thrustofth~Employer'sargumentthatanyrightsthegrievormighthave possessedshouldmor-eproperlytiavebeen againstthe subcontractorsratherthantheCrown. Counsel,owithrespecttotheseeondground,submittedthattheUnion shouldbeestoppedfromarguingitpossessedbargainingrightsinrespect offoodservicestaffattheG~elphCarrectio~al'Centreatthetime mate~ialto~his dispute. , He)'"oel iedonthedeeisionoftheOnfaf~i0 Labour RelationsBoarddatedDecember7,1992whichhasbeenmentionedearlierin Counselargued.thattheaforementioned~eeision determined thatthecollectivebargainingr~latio~ship,asitthenexisted,was betweentheUFCWUandNutritional.Henotedth.BoardfoundthatOPSEU hadabandonedanybargainingrightsitmayhaveohad. fi\21intainedthattheBoard\~ejectedOPSEU\sclaimtotorol'effectt(-O)<:\tthe employeesthereinquesticinwereencompassedbyitscollectiveagreement withManagementBoardofCabinet.Brieflystated,counsel theLabour~elationsBoard hadrejectedthesug~estionthat OPSEUwas "linked"t.otheemployeesofNLttl~itionalManagementServices.Inviewof thatBoard'sfindi~g,itwassubmittedthatOPSEUshouldnotbepermitted to f~E·litigate,inthisproceeding,the issueas.to·theirbargai.ning .'-15 statLIS.Iwasurgedtoconcludethatthedoc~rineofissueestoppel applicableinthecircumstancesandthat,·ac~crdingly,theUnionwasnot i I freetoclaimitwasthebargainingagentduringtherelevantperiod.The T0047/88wasrel~ed oninsupportofthis .13051t:i,em.Finally,counselnotedthatthegrievorneverpur~uedhis claim throughOPSEUuntilafterJuly1993,whichwassometen(10)monthsafter heceasedworkingforNutritional.hearguedthattherew~s no evidencebeforemetoindicatewhetherthisgrieverhadeve~becomea membel~'ofOPSEU. TheEmployerreliedonsubstantiallythesameargumentstosupport itsmotionfornon-suit. \ Insummal'-y,cOL;nselsubmittedthattherewasno t:~vic:lenceto.estc:\bli!'3hapriinafaciecasethatthegr'ievoY-wasanemplo'iee I oftheMinistxy.Further,itwasarguedtheUMionhadfailedtoleadany evidencet·ha·t'wouldsupportthee>:el~ciseof theI'''f?medic:.~l,jurisdictionof theGrievanceSettlementBoard. Onthebasisofalloftheargumentspre5ented~Iwasaskedto dismissthegrievanceonjurisdictionalgrouridsorpursuanttothegrant ofthenon-iuitmotion. Inrespons~,counsel fort~eUnibndisputedthesuggestionthathis client wa~,insubstance,attemptingtorel)tigatetheveryissuedecided ! preViouslybytheO~tarioLabourRelationsBoard.Hestatedthatthe priordecisionaddressedthequestionastowhichUnionhadtherightto representthebargainingunitdefinedintheapplicationforcertificatibn filedbytheUFCWU.Hecontrastedsuchquestionwiththeonewhichhe !.St:cAt~F2cJ.W2."ISl"1c::ltAibe·for,?t~hisVii:f~·····Chail~,namF.~ly,theemploymentstatusof thegrievorvisavistheMinistry.Counselsubmitted,inthisregard, 0". 16- that decisionwasnotdispositiveofthe questionasto~hetherthe~rie0or~at allmaterialtimes,wasinfactan empl,c;.lyeeoftl·...e 1'1:i.nistl'''Y"fl""orn c':ilabour'1'''e1atiem:..;;pb:i.nt: suqgE!stedthf2r"E:~,wasa.needto,"lookelsewhel'-E,IIii'''icl"cl(':::'I~tol'''esiolvE!t,hi.s From'hisperspective,thedoctrineofissueestoppel in~ll-lic-~lpMl'v=nt'ha't.•.c_t.J!..'..c:t.J-->;:1,~I• theL..abDur'F~:el iJti,onS',Boar-'dhe:\d'onl.\,/,.t<::\n~;)ent i Ell},Y theUnion,1nargument,spentconsiderablet£meand effortexaminingvarioGsprovisionsfoundinthefollowingdocuments: (i)Guideline~ForFood/Servic~Staff~GuelphCorrectional Centredated SeptEHnber 3,1992{e>:hibit TenderForManagementOfTheFood Sel~'y'iceF'rogre.mby NutritionalManagement'Servicesdated July1990 -=!'....n "_'.t,(ii i) Request FOI~ Q\..lot~ati011 datedJUlle2~1'1792 and Invi'lettion..,-10,. Tender-ForTheFood AtThe Guelph COI~rec:tional Centl~e(E?>:hibit 5);andAgreementBetweenTheMinisterOf COI'Tec'lional (e>:hibit 6). ServicesandDalmarFoodsLimiteddatedAugu~t 21,1992~ Counsel.as~ertedthatthe sub~ontractsinYclYin~Nutriti~nal and,later,Dalmarwerevirtuallyindi5tinguishabl~~Inhiswords,there \."JC:t5"cant:i.r",ui,tyin the-rle..tLlre 1j+tl"'ti:docLimentati on II• subcdntractorswererequired'let.confonr,( to,the p 0:1.ici,E'S, proceclul~esand I~~c;,~ulo.~tions ofthe IViinj~str"yassetout documents.Counsel suggested,onthebasisof hisexaminationof~he exhibits;tha~theMinistrycontrollednearlyall~spectsoftheFood ServicesProgram.He E',ubmittedthat,thisamountedto IIsubstanticd. overridingcontrol bytheinstitutionofthesupposedemployeesofthe .subcontractor"..Insubstance,hearguedthattheMinistryexercised .. -17~ \ -._~ "f:~f fE2Ct.:i.veccmtl'''o],11oV('?I'"theSE?emp],oy£::ef.5andthat~ IAlaSt.her'ealemp],oy(·;?y"frjy"<::\11butpay·..·,'·ollpLWpOSeS. asa.cons~quence,it TheUnion n?':l.iedon thefollowingdecisionsoftheOntarioLabourRel~tion&Boardinsupport ofthisposition:TeamstersLocal419v.KM~rtCanad~Limited.1248-82-____•__..._._.._•..3............__._••__•....._......._.•._. \, 1;.fI).pJQ.Y..§.~~~:_!:::ID..:Lgn.~'b:.9C9.J....,__:?:I?...Y..::__$utj;..Q.OJ::.LacJ~L_.liQl.~1._.~~.t_._~G~Hr~~5--79_.R (October1~1980,P.Picher). Fo~thereas6nsstatedintheaboveparagrap~~Iwa~askedtofind thatthegrievorwasanemployeeoftheMinistry'-atalimaterialtimes commencin~fromhisdateofhireinMay 1990.Counselemphasizedthat thisst.atuspredatedthedeemedeffectivedateoftheF'ubl.i...f;...._Ser-yjJ;e. L?.2d,this beiqgDE?cembel'"18, Consequently,'inhissubmission,thepl'·ohibitioncontained.they·einwould beinapplicable'herea~, .\, inlaw,thegri~voralreadypossessedthestatus ofanemployeeasof.suchclc,te.Counselclaimedth4t~.inview.ofsuch !5tatus,thesLlb~:;eqLlentchangeinbargainingagentwasi,~relevanttothe resolutionofthiscase.Inhisjudgment,thewrongfuldism.issal·occLlrred whenth~Mini~try refusedtoletthegrievorreturntoworkattheGuelph L CorrectionalCentre. Incounsel / fortheEmployerdidnotadvance the argumentbeforet.heRelationsBoardthatthe subcontl'"actcJrs'in·fact,Crownemployees.Indeed,.he sLlggestedthat,.atthatjuncture,theBoardw001d.nothavebeenableto order asitdid iftheemployeeswereactuallyCrown~mployees.HealsD argued.that:th~timeperiodmaterialtothiscase_wasinAugust1992when ) -18- thegrievorwasterminat.dbyNutritional andnothiredbyDalmar. CounselrejectedtheUnion'sassertionthatthisdisputeshouldbe I resolvedonth~basisthegrieverwasanemployeeoftheMinistryas·of 'l'1ay 1990.Hesubmittedthatthegriever'semploymentsituationwas distinguishablefromthecircumstancesidentifiedinthedecisionscited bytheUnion. ThedecisionoftheOntarioLabourRelations.Boardr~latingtothe UFCWU'sapplicationforcertificationisonehundredandthirty-four(134) (pagesinlength. Itad~res5esthe issuesraisedinacomprehensive fashion. 1 The'folfowingparagraphsofthedecision.providethebackground andcontextofthatdispute: "3.Oneo·fthethingsthatI'1CSmustdoispl~ovidefood·fortheinmates. Itmaydothis~ith~rbyusingitsownemployees,orby-engaginga subcont~actor toprovideonsitefood~ervices.Ineachofthese applicationstheworkersaffectedareemployeesofasubcontractor~hat helSbeenengagedbytheMeStoopel~atewhat itdescl~ibesasits"Food ServicesProgram".TheMCSinvitestenders,andthefoodservices contractisawardedtothesuccessfulbidder. 4..WhatisatissueCl.teachof bargainingrightsofthefood subcontractors,andtherightsof Morespecifically,weareaskedto t'hefour service theunions deter'mine: locationsarethecollective employeesworkingforthe claimingtorepresentthem. L_·.. (a)whichunionisentitl~dto representtheworkersa0each location;and;: (b)the'legalfc)undationo·fthosebar-gi£drdngI~j.gr!ts~c:el~·ti+:i.cation undertheb§\b9J::!r:,R~1..§.j;i.9n.~Bct,a'c~llecti veagnrementbinding .undel~U1eb.£.-t.!..pqrRel..§1.iq[!..EL..£L!;:t,.,orpre-e~·(istingOF-SEllba!~ga,ining rightsextendedto'thesubcontractoranditsemployeesbya "CI~o\-'JnTr·ans-f-el~"). 5.OPSEUassertsthatithastherighttorepresenttheseworkers because,(ineachinstance,therehasbeenatransfer.ofCl.n"under-taking 11 withinthemeaningoftheGroltJnTralJ.§fers..Bs..:t,withthel~esLlltthatthe subccmtl"actol~isboundtorecognizeOF-SEll'scolIectiveagl~eementand bargainingrights.OPSELIas~e~tsthatonthetransferofapart ofthe Crown'sundertakingtoanemployer'11intheprivatesector"(i.e.an employercoveredbytheLaboLI""F\elati O!l2......ll!;:t)!1OPSEU'sbargainingrights followautpmaticallyandattachtotheemployeesofthesubcontractor.On ~. .', 19- OPSEU'sanalysis,thewishesoftheemplo~eesareirrelevant.Whatcounts ist.hatthey':lI'"edcjing"wc:wk"cu§.tomarilypel~formedby civilser·v,",nt.s, i:~nd,inOPSE~U"ssubmissic.1n,th.:\t:i~.5sufficienttoeE~ti:"bl:i.shOF'SEU's,ril,:;Jt-,t toI;"epI'"e S.f?ntthem;PUl"!::~uc\nttothe~~LQ.~D........Ir':"'~ill s't~r:_.B£j;... 6.Butatthreepfth~institutions--Maplehurst~MetroWest,andGuelph theUFCWhasorganizedwhatitassertswereunrepresentedemployees. TheUFCW~n~olledthbseemp'loyeesintomembe~shipatatimewhenOPSEUwas not'onthe!::.c:ene,andclaimsthatiti.s€,mtitledtocerti,ficc:',tionasthe employees'bargainingagent. .."""II.An·ItII..a..n"'N.."""..nilnIf"U"n..IIn...,u It , j~'t theGL\elphCDrn=?ctionCentl~e,theSl.\bCDntl~actorist1utc..Lt.L9.DaJ".. l'1a.r,agg,!T)erit~.E!rvice..§.("Nutritional").OnApril19,1991theUFCWfiledan applicationforcertificationseekingtorepresentallemployeesof NLltr-itionalinGL\elph.-Io'Jhichwouldincludethosewor-kingattheGuelph CorrectionalCentre.Insupportofthatcertificationapplication,the UFCWfiledmembership car'dsonberlalfof'c.~ll t.hosewhom'it.d,.:\imedwel"'e employeeswar-kingfor-Nutritional(i.e.onehundr-edpercentmembership support).Nutrition~ldoe~riotoppos~thiscertification-application;so, inthiscas€~,tileonlyimpeclime'httotheUFCW'scertificationisOPSEU"s intervention•.AsatMaplehurst,OPSEUassertsthatwhenthesubcontractor\ -hereNutrittonal-Signeditsag~ee~entwiththeCrownther~wasaCr-own transfer~sothat-NutritionalinheritedtheCivilServicecollective agreeme~tthat OPSEUhad~ith theCr6wn.Again~thereisnoevidencethat anyoftheemployeesinq\..\e,stionar'emembersofOPSEU,orthatOPSEUhas everpl~e\liouslypL\rportedtor-epresentthem(seeinfl:~)•Onceagain,UFCW claimsthattherehasbeenno"transfer"ofan"undertaking"towhichtrle G;.r-ownTl~ansfers Act-applies;and,eveniftherewas,,OPSEUhas'longago abandoneditsb~rgainingrights~, 9.MCSoperatessamefiftycorrectionalinstitution~acrossthe F'rovinee.Cateringservicesare"contractedout"atnine'institutiDns- includingthefour-hereunderreview.Attheremainingi~stitutio~s,food servicesareprovideddirectlybyMCSusingit~owne~ployees.'Those employeesarecivilservants,representedb~OPSEU,andbqundbytheCivil Servicecollectiv~agreement.Civilservanticustomar-ilY'dothekindof work-nowbeingdonebytherespondents'employeespursuanttotheir commercialcontract.wit.htheCrown. 10.Atthefourinstitutionsinvolvedintheseproce~dings,cateri~g~ serviceshavebeencontractedoutformanyyearsto'variousfood subcontl'-ac:tor5.Thel;"eisnoevideneethat.atthe~3e Ioca'tion,s.food .,", ':3erv1ceshavef'-:'yerbeen PI~OVj,dedby tiCSemployeesr,epresentedbyOPSEU. ill....,.""..l.f.."....If..............ill...............'!"................"..II..."»..............a........ill".."IIf......"..•.......a..ill 12.(Thesubcontractorshavechangedfromtimetotimeinaccordancewith thecompetitivebiddingprocesstowhichwehave alre~dyreferred.There .. -20- isnopattern.Sometimesthatcatererwillbeabletosucces~fullykeep thecontl'"act fOI"several·years..Som€~time~~there.is·,mewefr~equent'. c:h':ingeover".'SomE.'times_t.,lIesUbcontr'actol'.'is'''unionizE~d",'like,Par:nell., !30ITH:~tilTl€~sit isnot.In allcases.thesubcontl'''.::\ctol"'selectsi·tsown employeest.odel i.verthesey"vicesithascont.l~e:\ctedtopl~'ovide~And"l'il'Jt on1yi~stI'''I,el~e noevideincethat-thesesf.~rvic:eshaveey"gr:.b€~en pl'''ovidedby I'1C5E:'inploYf.'~esattheselocations,bLlt,ov€~r-theyears,OPSEU'hi:\s'o..~i?r as~erted thattheemployeesofanyofthesesubcontractorswerereally "CI'"ownf2mp],oyees",orthatthesubcontr"actor's',were IICrownagencies"01'" thatDF'SEUI~E~pn:?~'5t:~ntedany0'+=theseworkE?r!:;pLw'suanttothi:?pl'''ovisionsof theCI~'_~::~~.r_L__Ir"s:m,:?.:L(~r'!::Li:tc;j::..,Ol~other"'l'Ji,seNSubc:ontr'actorshavec:hi:\nqE·dand employeeshavecomeandgone,butOPSEUhasneverbeforeasse~ted, bargainingri~hts. :1.3..,At:in=.,1:ituti.ons'Io'Jhel'''e,MeSdoesnotc,ontl'''actoutca1:el'-il"'lqf~el~vices,. MeSemploysperSons'whoperformvirtuallyidenticaljobduties,andare employedin,theSiiMnejobclassi-fications.:.~s theindividLlalsemployedby ParnellorNutritional.OPSEUhashadacollectiveagreementwiththe Crowncontinuouslysince1977.Thiscollectiveagreement~ppliestoa bargainingLl~it coveringthewholeoftheOntarioPublicSerVice, e>:cludir1gonlyindividLlalsspecified'i-nsection 1(1)(f)of.the~ro~D.. Emp1.QY§.§''§'_£Q:1LectiveBargainingAct.Thebaq:jainingunitinclLldesworkers employedbyMCSt6providecateringservicesatthecorrectional institLltions'wherethoseservicesarenotprovided.byanoutside SLlbcontr-8ctC)r. 14.Officerso'ftheOPSEUlocalsat:the-foLlrinstitutionsherein.issue, haVehadknowledgeof thecontracting·ofcateri~g services,attheir ins,titLltionstliroLlghoLlttl'''Ieperiodforwhfchthoseserviceshavebeen contracted.However,aswehavealreadymentioned,OPSEUneversoughtto representtheemployeesofthesubcontractorsengagedfromtimetotime. OPSEUneversoughttobargain.onbehalfof.thoseemployees,andnever soughttoapplyitscollectiveagreementtothoseemployees.OPSEUne~er soughttoorganizethem,orenrollthemintomembershipi~'OPSEU orapply f6rcertification.OPSEUneverraisedanylegalclaim,tobetheir bargainingagent.Theseworkerswereeitherunrepres~nted,orwere representedbyat~ad~unicn otherthanOPSEU..Theirtermsandconditions ofem~loymentwere deter~inedeitherby individualbargainingwiththeir, employer,orcbllectiyebargainingthroLlghabargaining'agentotherthan DPSELJ..! .. 1$..IfU"*UII'1$"II".."•II....a IIIIIII"•""II..."II..""..II1/1II.."IIIIIa..II....II·It....a IIIIII..."IIIIU..."a III•IIIIII... 16...Toputtheseissuesinfurtherperspective,weshouldnotethatthe ~orkersprovidingfoodservicesatGuelphwereon~erepresentedbythe UFCWthesameunionwhichnowseekstorepr"esenttheNLltr"itional \employeescur:'''entlyworkinga'tGLlr~lph.Thathis'tOI'"y,pl~ovidesan interestingbackdropforthecurrentproc:eedi~gs~becauseitinvolvesthe e>:en::i.5e 0+I~ig!"'1'ts.undertheb..abourR.el§j;iJ;lrl2....~_C~,ctat oneo,{~the1ocation5 whereOPSEUnowseekstopreclLldethesameexerciseofrights. ••••••••••••_,••••••••na•••••••••••••••••-••••••••••••••••'•••••••••••••••• -21- :21..,Thl'"clughout,t~lf?courseo·ft.heseevents~noonemaclef.myapPl:Lcf.:\tlon undEW~(::>,.,n2+el'"enceEi;'to~the'~::.Q_I:.!EL..IX.:.§:1DS.:titr.::.§._....B..f:..:.t.OPSEUtooknopC:-\I'-tin anyofthesEpro~eedings(~ertif1cation~SUCCEssorr1ghts)~although "n6ticeo~themwouldhavebeenpostedonthepremisesufthe{n~titution. Acccrdingly~UFCW'spresehtcertificationapplicationcanbeviewedasan efforttore-establish~argainrights similartothosewhichitheldsome yf-.?ar-sagoalbeit~,inrespecto·fthe't::?mployeesofadif fen::H-'lt ~;:"L.ibcontl'-ac:tor··.Thus,UFC~\1 as:;h::>,rhe>tC:lI'"ic.::\11 y,""'JhEWewa<.:~ClPSEU":;and IIwhy c:Ii.ditnev€:;)rseektor-epr'eE>entwor'kerswhomi.tnowc1.:.\1mstohelVe I~'epr'esenb--=dall 2\1or"lg?" Ultimately,theBOardfoundthat,inthecircumstancesofthetase,OPSEU he:\dabandoned"my I'-j.ghtsundel~theh:.§.\boJ.:.\LJiel...§ti_.cm..?Actthatitmayhave TheBoardstateditsconclusion in,thefollowingterms: IIWe,findthatther-eisnobartothethreeUFCW'certiofic:ation appl~cations.nowbeforeus,becausethereisnosubsisting colIectivebc:'\rge:\iningreIationshipor colIec:tiveagre€~ment co~eringthe employeesoftherespondentstowhichtheUFCW applicationsrelate.AnybargainingrightswhichOPSEUmight have'had,ormi9hthavebeenableto~ssert~havelongsince" beenabanclonf?d.11 j (paragraph2~::'O) Onthebasisofthisfinding,theOntarioLabourRelation~Boardgranted. bargainingrightstotheUFCWUinrespectofNutritional'semployeesat ,/ theGuelphCo~rectionalCentre,~ave andex~eptmanagers andpersonsabove therankofmanager. TheabovedecisionclearlydeterminedthatOPSEUdidnothaveany f bargc.'dningrightsinrespectoftheemp1oyeeso·fNLltl~'it ltma\woddngin thefoodservicesprogramattheCentre.Similarly,theOntarioLabour RelationsBoardrejectedtheUnion'sassertionthattheseemployeeswere encompassedby.itscollectiveagreement~ith ManagementBoardofCabinet. OPSEUdidnotacquiresuchrights,andthat~ollectiveagreement didnot bec6me operati~e,untilatleastJuly 1993whentheMinistryelectedto dispensewithsubcontrac:tol~sand took,overthefoodservicesprogram ·. 22- d:i.I'"ect1y. Simplyput~·theBoard foundthattheapplicablecollective bargainingrelationship wasbetweenNutritional~asEmployer,.",nd the UFCWU~c:\sUnicm.ItfoIlows~inmyjudqment.,.thatOPSEUdidnothi::\veth~? requisitestatustochallengeeitherNutritional'sterminationo{the grievororDalmar'ssubsequent.refusaltohirehimatthetimethose decisionsweremade. SUbj~ctto theUnion'sargumentconcerningthe therefrom,itisdifficulttoSeehowtheUnion~ould.improveitsposition andacquiresuchst~tussimply throughthepassageoftime,especially giventhefact·thatthegrievor,unliketheDalmaremployees~wasnever formallyappoint~d~othes~rviceoftheC~own. TheUnion,asnrJfed,J'"'eliesonthedecisionsoftheOntarioLabour [-'laceHotel.'.Thesedecisions,geneJ~c:\lly,setoutthecriteriawhichthat Board'considE~rshelpfulindeter-mining'whichoftwo(or'mol~e).entitiesis theemployer fCl\~pLlrposesofthebEl.I;;LOurReIatiOilS.{·kt.ThereIe\/ant criteriainc10dethefollowing: 1.th.Partyex~rcisihgdirection andcontrolovertheemployees; 2.thep~rty bearingtheburdenof'remuneration;! 3~thepa'l,··tyi~posirlg.di~cipline; 4~thepartyhiringtheemployees;. 5~thepartywithauthoritytodismisstheemployees; 6.thep~rtywho isperceivedtobetheemp~oVerby thee~ployees; 7.theexistenceofanintentiontocreatetherelationship.of employerandemployee. anyparticularorderofIprioritytothosefactors,butratherhavetended toindicatethattheweighttobegiventoeachfactormustdependupon thefactsofeachcase".However~itis clea~thattheBoardhasattached considerablesignificanceto"over-riding"or"fundamental"control in ... -23- makingitsdetermi~ation. Asinditatedprevio~sly,"C C)LlnSt'?1f(;)1'- .and cantr·actuc.~ldoc~mentsevidencingthe relationshipbetweenthe subcontractorsandtheMinistry. to.findthat the·Mini!:',tr"y E')-:e 1'-c:is;f?cI "E·f+ective"and controlover\theemployeesofthesubconfractorand,forthat I~E'ason,wasinfactandlawtheiremployer.Itisinterestingtonot~ thattheOntarioLabourRelation&Boardengagedinasimilarexercisewhen consideringtheUFCWU~ppl~cation.Its n-2viewofthetendel~andc:cmtt-act documentsisfouridbetweenparagraphs37to53ofthedecision. madethefollowingobser-vations: TheBoar-d "54.Ltwillbeseenthatthecontractshel'-einissuear-er-eally"labour-' onlysubcontracts"·-i.e.,Wheltthe subcontl~c:\c:tol~suppliesisthe.ser-vices (:Jf.itsemployees,.whoseactLlald,LI,tiesal~epre!~c:r-ibed·inminutedetai1by t~e Crown,andwhos~acti0itiesonthejobar-esubjecttotheoverriding c.~uthor-ityof.'thesi..lper-intt~ndentof thecDr-rectionalinstitLltion.·Itis difficulttoseewhatelsethesubcontractor-·r-~allybr-ingstothebar-gain. Similar-ly,itisdifficulttor-esisttheconclusionthatwhattheCr-own obtai.liSfr'om'thesear-r-angementsis"1aboLlr-"possibly tthou\;)h·not necessar-ily)atcheapel"r-at:e~:;t.hanitwouldbeo?ligedtopayci Vll ser-vantsdoingthesameJobs,andwithoutthelegalobligations~whichas thei'r-IIernp1oyer-",.theCr-own,wouldothen"Jiseh'avetoassume.FI~omthe employeeper-spective,theydothesamew6rkascivilservantsbutdon't havethesamesalar"y,benefits'01'·secl.lr-itY!ibl.lt,bythe SalTlE.token,-the·/ mighthavenowor-ka~.allifthejobsactuallyweredonebyCrown employees.Their-employer'sbusin~ssnicheliesinprovi~ingservices th.:':lt-·othel'-emp1 oyer-s--h&?I·-etheCI'-O\f~1I donot.v'-lanttopr-ovidef Ot- themselyesorwiththeir-owniemploye~s~ .'. "•II"It"•"•Da'.,•aa•••~••-.••.1lIn..•aa..II•"....II..aN....U....1.1na.;'•"••II.."......na,.II"• 59.Ontheother-hand.thereisnoevidencethattheCr-ownhasever- exer-cised,or-soughttoexercise,anyof.the(author-itytypically associatedwi-ththestatuso·f"empIOYf?l'""(hil'-ing;fii~ing,pr-omotic:m, dir~ctingemployees intheir-work,etc.).Thereisnodir-ectcontrolof thiskind.Nor-doestheCrownpaytheemployees'wages(atle~st dir~ctly),or-dealwithsuchmattersasworker-"compensation,une~ployment insur-ance,incometax,etc.And,aswehavealreadymentioned,noone ar-guesinthesecasesth~t thefoodBer-viceworkersnominallye~ployedby thesubcontr-actor-ar--e,in 1aw,."employee~;11of\1CS,or-thatthenatur-eof ther-elationshipbetweenMeS andthesubcontr-actor-~akes thel~tter-~in .' 24 1r.:\w,<-.11I.C:;r-<:Jwn(3(:;JE-~r·}cy,ll.;.._"II".••","..a..."'",II"..ft'...""..""........"«w""If.,.·If,,,-',,..."......"" ~.-- ", "..a II..II."-..II....II..........II..............AIIIIII........"."..11,.............II"..It·....If"'II............"'II.D".,""II".. 207.Virtuallyaveryaspectoftheoperationisprescribedinminute detailorissUbje~tto th~directionandcontrolofMCS.Thefirmsare notju~t giventheuseoftheMCStools,e~uipmentlkitchens,cafeteria facilitiesandfDocl,ti'lf?y.::w-et.clldpl"eciselywl-Iat.'lei dowit.hthem,andt"'lt')w 'l:Cldoit.Thi~:5 is"nota'''c:ontl'-r,H:tingQh,l1."bLIt.r-i~t:her a"contl'-ac:tingiO..", wherebythefoodservicefirmi~enlistedtoprovide~initstotality,a corefunctionoftheundertakingusingtheequipments~ppliedby theCrown tC:lthe"C:l..Istomel~s"defined9Y the[I'''own-thatiswhyitmustbeI'"egulated insuchdetail,using-thetools,equipment,andeventhefoodprescribed byMCS.Whathashappenedhere,isthat,thefoodservicefirmhasbeen 'pel"mittedtotake,ovel~and,,"uni~'1cohel'''ent~1identi,fiable"pal'-t"ofttle institut:i.em:ac:onstellationoffunctionstQ.gf'.2tl~l-~r:.,_,_,~i...iJJ..manyofthe essentialinstrumentstoperformthework,andproVidetheserviceto whichthecontl'-actsreIClt.e." Itisapparentfromtheaboveexcerptsthatthe'OntariqLabour RelationsBoardwasfullycognizantof£hescopeofdirectionandcontrol retainedbytheMini~try inits~ealing~withthesubcontrac:tcirs.The I I Boardspecificallystatedinpar~graph5~ofitsdecisionthatsuch controlwasnotthetypeof"directcontrol",typlcallyassociatedwiththe statusofemployer.Itobservedthattherewasnoevi~encethat the Ministryeverhired,fired,promotedordirectedtheemployeesofthe sLlbcontractoF". Th~BoardnotedfurtherthattheMinistrydidnotdirectly " pay_theirwagesordeal,withmatters,suchasWOrkers',Co~pensa~ibn,on theil'"be!'''lal f. ThecommentsofAlternateChairMacDowellonthispoint, undOUbtedly,reference thec~iteriausediri caseswhereit mustdeterminewhichoftwo(2)ormoreentitie~istherealemp1 oyel'-. Hisobserv~tfonsmakeitclearthatheconsideredtheemployeestobe employeesofthe~ubcontractorand nottheCrown.Indeed,itise>:tremely unlikelythattheBoardwoul~haveorderedasitdidif,itbelievedthese individualswere,infactandlaw,employeesoftheMinistry~,Inthecase nowbeforeme,counsel,fortheUnionasks,insubstance,thi::\tIusethe • .. -25 samecriteriatoreachadifferent~and respecttothegriever's~mploymentstatus. inconsistent,cenclusionwith Iamhesi.tan.ttoc:KCt'?ptthi~:; in~itationas,inmyjudgment,theoverallissueofemploymentstatuswas pr~viouslydetermined bytheOntarioLabourRelationsBoardinits decis'ionof Decembel~7,1992. argumentshouldhavebeenadvancedbe~orethat Boardratherthanhere. Simplyput,Ithinkitabitlateinthedayto~utthegrievor's employmentstatusinissueandto, underlyingtheBoard'sdecision. thereby,challengeamajorpremise Notwithstanding.thehesitancyexpressedabove,Ihavereviewedthe , .evidencepertaihingtothe·grievor·semploymentandhavea~sessedit againitthecriteriautilizedbytheOntarioLabourRelationsBoard. Havingdoneso,Ifindthatthegrievor'atallmaterialtimeswasan employeeofthesubcont~actors. In,thisregard,Ihaveattached significancetothefollowingfacts:thegrievorwashiredand terminatedbythesubcontractors;Cii)thegrievorwaspaidbycheques issuedbythesUbcontractor~;and(iiU thegrievor,atlea~tpriorto thecommencementofthis~ase~consideredhimselftohavebeenanemployee firstofParnellandthen,later,of,Nutritional.Ihave'alsoconsidered ! thetypeof'directionandcontrolwhichthegrievorspokeof inI-lis Ihavebeenpersuadedthatitfailstoestabli,shiheMinistry wastheEmployer.theevidenceissimplyconsistentwiththe Ministryhavingconcernsastobothfoodqualityandinstitutional IreachthesameconclusionsasdidtheOntarioLabour Fielati.onsBoardwithrespecttotheoperation / andeffectof,the .. -26 contr~ctualrequirementsplacedonthesubcontractors. Insummary,I.amsatisfiedthatthegrievorwashiredj,niti~",llyasan Iamunabletoacceptthat,eitherfactu~llyor legally,h<?wasan employeeoftheMinistryasofMay1990. Itfollowsthathewascaptured bythedecisionoftheOntarioLabourRelationsBoardandaffectedbythe prohibitioncontainedin .1~?9..3.·\ IaccepttheEmployer'ssubmissionthatth~grievorwasnotan employE·efor purposes.ofthecollecti~~agreement.Therec.ognition ~lause,asfoundinarticle1.1,references"public,ser"vants".Section 1 (1).ofthe;!=r-cl\o'.ln_E.f!.illJoveesCollectiveBar-gai,ni..D..9..:-._Ac,i.adoptstheEubllS:. §,~.I~Vi,.f=e_il.ct:.,definitionofpublicser-vant:.Itisclearfromareadingof suchdefiniti6nthatitc6ntemplatesan expressappointmenttotheservice oftheCrownbytheLieutenantGovernorinCouncil,theC6mm~ssjon,ora ( t1i,nistel~.Thel~e hi:\sneverbeenanappoint:ment'onthefactsinthisCC:lse. Additionally,IamsatisfiedthatthePublicServiceStatuteLawA~endment Act,1993prec1udes mefl~om inferri ngthegr'ievorwasappointe?aj5apLlblic .. civilservantorCrownemployeefromthecircumstancesofhlS employment. f. By\lirtueofsect-ion 8.1(11).,thisprohibiti1onwasdeemedto havecomeintoforceonDec.ember18,1991.Thatdateiswellinadvance ofthecircumstanceswhichled directlytothisgrievance.Asstated <-ibove~,Ihav~-also rejectedtheUnion'sargumentthatthegrievor held employeestatusasofMay1990. F:lnal1y,Ifurther-accf=pt that:tJJeUnioncannotinvoke-al'"tiele'1.8('2\ -) as"a sourceof .' juri'~>diction..Df:,:ctian1(1.) -27- 0+theB.<;;..t.providE?':"that 11empIayee.mean,sa C,rownemployeeas,definedion Thelatt.er"" ,:"tc.{tute'rJl?+:i.ne,::;CI"'ownemp1ayf.'.?e,,""5 IIapel'''sonemployE?dintheser"v:i..c(;?ofth~' C,,"own•••"On,the factshel~e,thegl'"ieVClrwasneVE'I'-soemp1.eyed. atallmaterialti~es, reasonsseto0tabDve, hewt:\Sernp1oyed Ie\mpn::lhib:i.t:.ecl bythe5ubcdntractcrs.F6rth~ jJ bythE'W'ovi5:iemsc·f thetubli..£ appoint.ment.I note,specifica'lly, I'Jhichpl~ovidesthat"anindividualwhoisemplDyedintheservice af thE'C,,-awn isnotconsidered'tobe.21.Crownemp16yeeunlessthe individualhasbeenexpresslyappointedassuchbythe,LieutenantGove~nor I' 'inCouncil,theCommission,or aminister".Clearly~ther~wasno SL\ch appointm~ntinthisinstance.Ultimately,Iconclud~thatthegrievoris not,entitledtoexe~cisethe rightsaccordedt6employeesbysection18(2) (:>fthe~rown EmploveesCollectiveBarqainin~_. Insummary,andforallofthereason~expressedabove~I,findthat the Gr-:L,,-':?vance SettlementBeardlacksjurisdictioh toentertidnthe grievor~scomplaint.F'LltanotheF'way,theg~ievoF'isnQtentitl~d to pursue'hisgrievanceto·theBoard ashewasnot seF'vantorCrownemployeeforpUF'posesof thecollective~~~e~mentand the ! relevantstatut~s~Giventhelack0+evidencewithrespect~o statusand toentitlementtoaremedy,Iwould alsohavegrantQdthemotion foF'non- sLlit~Ineithere~ent,thegrievanceisdismissed. Dat.eclat Windsol~,Ontari 0t.his9f'h;dayof-JSfiU"ary,1996. _I'rf)~_'!.!_~~~'{''''''_''__''''''_ 1"1.V.Wat.tel~s,Vice,..,..ChaiF'