HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-2425.Papple.13-11-18 DecisionCrown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB#2011-2425, 2011-2427, 2011-2772
UNION#2011-0205-0018, 2011-0205-0021, 2011-0310-0013
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Papple) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Labour) Employer
BEFORE Nimal Dissanayake Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Sheila Riddell
Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
Counsel
FOR THE EMPLOYER Felix Lau
Ministry of Government Services
Legal Services Branch
Counsel
HEARING November 14, 2013
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The board is seized with individual grievances filed by Mr. Steven Papple (File
2011-2425), and Mr. Paul Malboeuf (File 2011-2427), as well as a group grievance
filed by a number of grievors (File 2011-2772).
[2] The employer takes the position that the Papple grievance should be severed from
the rest and dealt with first. The union submits that all three grievances ought to be
heard together.
[3] All of the grievors are employed as Construction Health & Safety Inspectors, who
work primarily in the field. It is common ground that all three grievances relate to
travelling the grievors did in May 2011 from their homes to their respective
designated offices for work related training. Mr. Papple’s grievance claims “mileage
rates” under article 13 of the collective agreement for that travel, for which he used
his personal vehicle. The Malboeuf and group grievances do not involve a mileage
claim since they used ministry vehicles for the travel in question. Their grievance is
about the fact that the employer has characterized the travel using a ministry vehicle
as a taxable benefit which must be declared as such by them under s. 6 of the Income
Tax Act. They seek by way of remedy an order that the employer change its
practice in applying rules under the Income Tax Act.
[4] The Board has considered the law and submissions of the parties. While it agrees
with the union that in a very broad sense all grievances raise the issue of whether the
travel in question is “personal travel” or “business travel”, the commonality ends
there. There would be minimal overlapping evidence. The legal issues and the
interpretations that would be required would be very different between a grievance
claiming mileage rates under the collective agreement for use of a personal vehicle,
and those involving a determination of how the employer may or may not apply
income tax rules.
- 3 -
[5] Therefore, the Board concludes that considerations of efficiency favour the
employer’s position. The Board will hear the Papple grievance first, and the
Malboeuf and Group grievances next. To the extent that there may be some
common evidence, the Board rules that during the hearing of the Malboeuf and
group grievances, the parties may rely on evidence tendered in the Papple matter, to
the extent that such evidence is relevant.
[6] The hearing will continue on the scheduled dates in accordance with the rulings set
out herein.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 18th day of November 2013.
Nimal Dissanayake, Vice-Chair