HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-1035.Union.90-12-28
-- I
ONTARIO EMPL OY~S DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOyEES DE l 'ONTARIO
1111 GRIEVANCE CpMMISSIONDE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
,BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 OUNDAS STREET WEST, SlJlTE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. MSG 1Z8 TEI.Ep,.¡ONEIT~L¡tPHONE: (4 T6) 326- r388
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO}, Msa IZ8' f:A.CSIMI!.Elr¡tLECOPIE: (4161 326- 1396
1035/90 I
I
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before !
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
CUPE (Union Grievance)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of ontario
(Workers I Compensation Board)
I
Employer
BEFORE: N. Dissanayake Vice-Chairperson
T. Browes-Bugden Member
D. Clark Member
FOR THE C. Lace
GRIEVOR Counsel
Sack Goldblatt Mitchell
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE P. pasieka
EMPLOYER Counsel
Winkler, Filion & Wakely
Barristers & Solicitors
HEARING: November 15, 1990
~
2
DEer SLON
This is a policy grievance wherein the Union grieves
that the Employer has violated article 8.09 (a) of the
collective agreement which reads:
8.09 An employee is eligible fl:)r overtime
compensation unless he:
(a) because of the nature of his position is
required to work irregular hours. Such
an employee shall, for the purposes of
payment, be deemed to be working a
minimum of forty (40) hours pier week, and
his salary shall be adjust(!d to forty
(40) hours on a straight timE! basis.
At the commencement of the hearin~J Counsel for the'
Employer moved that the proceeding.. be adjourned. This
motion was opposed by the Union.
The basis for the Employer's motion for adjournment
was that another panel of this Board had heard an
individual qrievancè and a poliey qrie'~nce between the
parties on August 2, 1990 in· which the proper
interpretation of article 8.09 (a) wa.s put in issue.
The Board's decision was pending at tlle time of this
hearinq. Counsel for the Employer submitted that that
panel's decision on the meaning of article 8.09 (a) will
determine a substantial part of the iSElue in dispute in
this grievance. For reasons of eff ic:ient use of the
Board's resources and to avoid the po:ssibility of two
panels of the Board placing conflicting interpretations
I
3
of the provision in question, Counsel urged this panel
to adjourn this matter pending the release of ,the
previous panel's decision.
Counsel for the Union conceded that the
interpretation of article 8.09 (a) was put in issue in
the prior grievance. However she contended that it was
raised there in a different context. Besides, Counsel
pointed out that in this case the union was relying on
past practice and estoppel arquments which were not
raised in the prior case.
Having received ful¡ submissions on the motion, the
Board orally ruled as follows:
Having carefully reviewed the sUbmissions
of both counsel, the Board is satisfied that
the previous panel will be required to
interpret art:Ì,cle 8.09 (a), whatever other
issues it may also be called upon to decide.
The meaning of article 8.09 (a) is at the
heart of this grievance also. Whi le the Union
intends to lead evidence of past practice and
argue estoppel, before entertaining those
issues the Board hearing the present grievance
will have to interpret the language in article
8.09 (a). In this matter the primary position
taken by both parties is that the meaning of
article 8.09 (a) is clear and unambiguous.
Therefore, the decision of the previous panel
will have considerable bearing, if not fully
,dispose of, this primary dispute between the
parties here.
In the circumstances, the Board sees
merit in the Employer counsel's SUbmissions in
support of an adjournment. The Board
accordingly adjourns this proceeding pending
~
,
4
the release of the decision by the previous
panel of the board.
This panel is not seized of this matter.
Dated this 28th day of December 1990 at Hamilton,
ontario
/~e~
N. I::iissanayake
Vice-Chairperson
cyJá~~~ ¿~I~ .
. T. BroWeS-BUq~
Member '
fÄ ~~. 4-/
O. Clark -
Me:ml:Jler
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
¡