Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-0249.Deschenes.93-06-24 I ¡;-. ...r,. ~'~-,'3i._<ð¡ '. :\f;~,~,:! . ~ t';" :T' - i~ . . ONTARIO EMPLOvtS DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARlO GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE 1111 SETTLEMENT . REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREeT WEST, SUITe 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. M5G TZ8 TELEPHONEITêLtPHONE.' (416J 326-1388 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100. TORONTO ¡ONTARIO). MSG lZB FACSIMILE ITELËcopre: (416) 326- 1396 GSB # 249/90, 2245/91, 2456/91, 2547/91, 2595/91, 2674/91, 2810/91 3133/91, 861/92 OPSEU # REV-U229, 91F895-91F898, . 92B131, 9.2B190-92B192, 92B234-92B235, 92B313, 92B473, 92A318, 92B944 IN THE HAT~ER OV AN ARBITRATION - .. Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SET~LBKBNT BOARD ., I BETWEEN , OPSEU (Deschenes') orievor - and - . The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Revenue) . Employer . .- BEFOU: J. samuels .- Vice-Chairperson ~~ . I. Thomson Membèr F. Collict Member FOR THE s. Goud.ge -' GRIEVOR Counse1 Gowling, strathy & Henderson Barristers & Solicitors , . FOR THE L. Marvy ", EMPLOYER Counsel Legal Services Branch Management Board Secretariat HEARING June 3, 1993 December 12, 1994 ^ ~ . ~..;-.. , '. ~. '.- (" (",j , ~1 "C;L.. ." 2 The Board was asked to reconvene after issuing its first award in this matter on J~ly 31, 1991. The Union grieved that the Minis~ry violated Article 4.5 of the collective agreement· by failing to pay relocation expenses for successful candidates chosen to fill posted vacancies. The grievance concerned a number of job postings where the area of search was said to be liuùted to candidates Hwithin commuting distance" of the office involved, but where employees who really lived farther afield appliedJ were successful, and then relocated to be near their new offices. In these, circumstances, the Ministry refused to pay relocation expenses on the ground that, by, applying for the jobs, the successful candidates had self-described themselves as already living "within commuting distance" at th~ time of application. We heard evidence concerning the circumstances of one of the employees involved (Mr. N. Quenneville), and ruled that he was entitled to be compensated for his relocation expenses. The critical reasoning in our earlier award went as follow~; Article 4.5 of the collective agreement says that "Relocation expenses shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of the Employer's policy". The policy referred to is found in the Management Board ·of Cabinet Policy Manual. The provisions of the policy make it clear that the directive applies to a move which falls within the definitions established in the policy. If a move is of the type covered by these definitions, then the terms of the policy apply. There are rio further conditions to be met which are outside the terms of the policy. Mr. Quenneville's move fit within the policy's definitions. In our conclusion, we ordered that Mr. Quenneville be compensated, and we went on to declare that the Ministry, ought to compensate other employees whC! were denied reimbursement for relocation expenses, if the failure to pay relocation expenses was a violation of Article 4.5 of the ;=- ¡. "4.- . ," . (...> ( .' ~i!; =- I 3 collective agreement, and if .the employees fit within one of the following categories: .' an employee who was denied reimbursement for relocation expenses thirty days, before the 'Union's grievance was filed on February 2, 1990, or thereafter (because Article 27.12.1 of the collective agreement provides that a Union grievance shall be filed within 30 days following the occurrence or origination of the circumstances giving rise to the grievance); . an employee who filed an individual grievance~ complaining of the Ministry's failure to pay relocation expens~s, where the individual grievance has not yet been finally resolved, awaiting - . the determination of this Union grievance; or . an employee who complained about the Ministry's failure to pay relocation expenses~ where the complaint was conveyed to management by the employee or by the Union, and where it was understood that this complaint would be determined by the , outcome of the Union's grievance. We reserved our jurisdiction to determine any issues arising between the parties concerning the identification of the employees i!lVolved and the compensation due to any individual. Following the issue of our earlier award, the Union issued a memorandum to all its locals within the Ministry of Revenue. advising that a claim be put in by any employee who ought to have received compensation for relocation, according to the : interpretation of the collective agreement set out in our award. And this generated a significant number of claims for relocation expenses which the Ministry had not seen before. The Ministry refused to pay these claims, taking the position that these were not Claims which had been 11 denied" , and therefore the - - , I I ~ . ~ ......... .. ~ c." (, . . . 'j- ~ . ,. " ..... 4· . employees were not within the first category of employees listed in our order ("an employee who was denied reimbursement for relocation ") expenses..... . The Union argues that any employee with a valid claim for reimbursement, pursuant to the reasoning y.:e set out in our analysis of the Quenneville claim, is entitled to reimbursement. I As we said in our earlier award, Article 4.5 of the collective agreement makes the Employer's policy the governing document for purposes of determining the circumstances within which relocation expenses are payable. In this policy, there is no time limit for filing a claim for reimbursement. Therefore, if an employee filed a claim for relocation expenses after receiving the Union's memorandum, and was denied the expenses, that employee then fell within our first category-the employee had now been "denied reimbursement". The parties have agreed that, pursuant to our earlier award, the effective date for the application of the award is December 19, 1989. Therefore, within the first category, employees would be entitled to relocation expenses only if these· expenses were incurred after December 19, 1989. Thereafter, if the employee is entitled to relocation ex.penses . pursuant to the reasoning set out in our earlier award, the Ministry must pay the relocation expenses, no matter when the employee actually makes the .claim for the expenses. .. There is nothing in the Employer's policy which requires the employee to make the claim within a particular time frame. r ~\. .... ~,...... . ,110 (., . C" .. .' c, . . \ '~~~'!' '-.tl. ... . . 5 Done at London, Ontario, this 24th day of June, 1993 _--- L - 1. W.! SPmueIs, Viu:e-Chairperson . ßn: . - ...--.1 I. Thomson, Member / , q, d~~ I' F. Colliet, Member I I I _____n _ _ _ __