HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-0115PETRULLO96_06_14
ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO
1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO ON M5G 1Z8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE (416) 326-1388
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ON) M5G 1Z8 FACSIMILE/TELECOPIE (416) 326-1396
GSB # 115/95, 116/95
OPSEU # 95C457, 95C458
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Petrullo)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of ontario
(Ministry of Labour)
Employer
BEFORE M Watters Vice-Chairperson
FOR THE M. Keys
GRIEVOR Grievance Officer
ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE J. smith
EMPLOYER Counsel
Legal Services Branch
Management Board Secretariat
HEARING December 20, 1995
January 29, 30, 1996
May 22, 1996
- 1 ,-
The parties to this proceeding f :i. I E~d the following Aqreed Statement
Of Fact
1 On (iLlgust 20, 1992. the gr'i e"ol~ suffered a bac~ injul~y In a
work-related car accident. and received Wor ~ f?r s Compensatlon
As n.'?qui red by Art 54 " hE' remr.:d ned on pa')' roll for' the f:i.r-!:3t
"::'!I
65 days
" Un Dr' about J anuar-y -:~ 1 , 1 9q-:~' , the (;Jr'lP',ol~ rE,tur-ned t.o "mod J. of J. (:::'d II
.t-
v'Jor ~ on a par t time basis On l'1arch 29, 19'i _ , he returnee! to
full time duties
:\ . On August. 9, 199-:. the gr- i e\ or claimed i::\nd. s:,omet i m'':? li:Yter,
began receiving short term 5 i c ~: lea e benefit.s
J~ . On {-)ugust 2( ), 199:, the gr i evor- filed a claim with the l'Jor I er s
Compc;!nsat ion Boal~d due to a recurrence of his l'J ac f: iniury
5 The grievor s attendance v'Jas r-ecorded a~ 'sicl Ii and he
r'emai ned on the payroll at l~5h of his salary +or t.he ent i r'e
period o.f his absence from f~LlgUS:t q 199-: until FF!!br-uary
.
21, 1994
6. By e-mail dated September 8, 1993, Monica Harding informed
Be 'er 1 " nossel~ , District Manager, Ni agal~a, that the gr i evol~
s;.houl d not r-emai n on payroll if all credits have been e~ haw::,ted
(Attachment 1)
I On November 17, 1 99:::.' , the grievor \fJas sent LTIF application
f Ol~ ms from Human Resources Benefits
8 On Februat-.y " 1994. Mr Ruggiero, a WeB claims i:-1djudi catCJY",
~,
informed the grievor and the employer that the grievor 5
claim for a recurrence had been all o\fJed retro21ct i ve to
August 9~ 1993
~) On Febr-ual'''y , 199.lj . the ql~l e or. accompani f?d b'/ Doug H t t. , d
Union t-epresentati ve, met with Bev Fi.ossel~ and Mc:wgaret dc\~"chuk ,
Huma.n Resources Assistant.
1Cl ?'~t t.his meeting, the gr-l evol'- e pres:.sed concel'''ns about the
Sac i a 1 Contl~act deductions that. had been mac!{7i) fr"om hi~: <::" h cW' t -"
b:.~rm benef its, about the reinstatement obligation under- the
\.'~1.2rL~,2__.__t;2I,;~..E?n :;:~,1;.i.9.n,-B.<'::~"t. and about bf.:"'nef i t cover- :;tele
11 rhe employer representatives told the gl~ i evor thc.:\t he o\;~ed
the employer $12,010 .2:6 !I I'" epr'es,':?il't i ng the net, pay Ie r- (2C E:?:i. veci
, 1 short term disability
W'll,. e on
12 The employer representati' es understood from tl1i 5 meetinq that
t.ht2 grievor agreed to I~epay the Mi n 1 stl~Y by sending them a
- 2 -
chequE? for" thE~ <:\mount oVJed, and gave Ili m a 1 et. t !:?r ccmf]. nni nq
this underst:andi ng (At t.i::\chll(?nt. ,2)
1 (1 'f ur t hell" memo, f V" om Ivl a r gel'" Ed:, ::}<,wchu! to 1"1 em :I. c: a Hi:'III'''c:li rlCJ dE\teci
Ff,~bruary 14, .1 99 l, follows up on t.he F' eb r Ui:.'1r 'y 7, 1.99/~ meeti rl~l
( (.4t.t.achment ~,)
.1 i) The gl~ i ever undE~r'r,:;teocl fv-om t.hi r,~ meetinq thcit h(~ aqr-!:-ed to
pc:\Y bac k the amount. otNed ~'Jhen his q\.H::'sti OilS about deductions
had b E'en a n S:,hl("~r" E,d <:\!"lel hE~ hc:\d 1'- E?C E' i v F?d an i':ldeClU tE~ i,:\c:count], r'IL!
1/:::' The v,ICB sent a letter dated Febr-uar ,f '7, 1994 (attachment 4)
'-'
ti.) tht'" grievor i n 'f Dr m i n q hi m thE:\t. the cli::\im hac:! been allowed,
a che<Jue \l'JOul d be issued t.o him, and that 10'Ie "',I a 5 to mc.'I~:e
arrangements with hi emp 1 0 lel~ to repi::t't the ad\/anc:es:, made b
the employer-
.1h On FebnJav-y '7 1. 99 ,il , the \,lJCB i s.r,;uE?d a chequ!-: 'f Dr- $ 1. if, 751 i )'3
,
to the grievor
.1 On Febr-uary 9, 1994, the gl~ i evOI'" contacted Eberhcwd Foelzl.
FarTOll Representati ve, regav"ding the calcuJ.2:"\tion of the amoLlnt
to be repai d.
lEl On February 21, 1 99il , the gr i evol~ r-eturned to modified duties.
19 Further discussions between Mr. Foelzl, 11s F\ossel~ and the
glr'i evor tool place during February~ 1991.1 The qri e'/or did
not understiand why he had to pay benefit premiums ,For the
per'i od from August 9, 199~' t.r.3 February 21, 1991.i when
deduct,lons for benefit coverage had been made fr-om hi s
s:hort term disc:\bility pa/ments:, Nor did he under-'st.and v\lhy
S',oc i a1 contv"act deductions made dUI~ i ng that pet-lod did not
count
20 By It?tter dated March 15, 199ij (c:lt tc:lchment 5) ~ l'li c:hel
D Emrni::\nuell e (on behc.d f of Be" F\os'.:;: er ) c:lt tempted to res,pond
to the gl"'i8 01"- ~. conce1"-ns:.
21 This letter did not. clear up matter':'3 for tlie grievor He
was still not satisfied that the employer had pl'" oper- 1,/
calculated t. II fo2 amount ot",ing '3nd the corr-'espondi ng benefits
Because of thi s, he did not i ss.ue a cheque to the emp 1 0:" er
22 Meanwhi Ie, though the grievor had retLtr"ned to ",'ork on
Febr-uav"y 21, the employer did not issue paychequ8s to the
grip-vol'" On April 1.1, 1994 the gr-ievor filed a grievance
1~eg2.rdi ng the non-p aymen't of wages (,,~t tc:'\Chmf:'nt 6) Shortly
therea'fter, the emp 1 c.'lyer paid the grievDr hi, s bac~ wages
and the gri evar withdrew that grievance.
~"':; On 1''Iay ::1, 1994, a meet.ing was held to discuss the
- 3 -
outstanding amoLlnt owing. The gr i evor- i;"ilttended with his
steward~ William Wilhelm Etev F\osser~ George Sutt.on~ Monica
H.::lI'-d i ng ~ Eberhar'd Foel'::l and MdE.' Scott ",t tended for the
emp 1l1yelr
2i; 1"1ae Scott a 1 s:.o informed the gr-i evo)'- that the amount o.f debt
owing to the employer' was more than $l:~()l() -;~6 as originally
calculated Flrom September 199_ to Februal~ 'I 1994, the
employer had deducted $1~575 86 from the gri eVOlr s short
t.erm bEmef i t.s for- the employee s cc:mtr- i but :i. on to the pEms:.J. on
plan As well~ in order to maintain benefits during that
p elr i od ~ the gri e ,lor \o'muld also have to pay an additional
$..:.....:..2.81 to cover t.he employee s portion of the pl'"(~lmi um
r,!:::- The gr-l evor again brought up hi s concelrns:. about what
"'-
happened to the deductions +or pension cmd beneflt premium
contributions mad",? from his:. short term di ~:;abJ.l i t.y pclyment s
~,6 By' the end 0+ the meetJ.ng~ the grie\,or had acqLli esc(,:?d to the
emplo/er ~:; request t.o for\o'Jard a number o'f cheques to the
employer by June "7 1994 one lump ~:, Ll m of ':!;5, OoCl ~ and a
~
selr i es: of post --dat.ed CheC/l,le!:.~ 2 per month of $ 65 each.
..,"7 By 1 (';.~t t.er dated May '2:1 ~ 199!j.~ Mae Scot.t outlines the
.'':'" (
agreement. made at the meeting and attempt.~:, to e plain why
the grievor must pay the pension contribution and employee s
portion of t.he bf:me.f i t premium (Attachment 7>
'-.r, On June 2B~ 1994~ the grievor sent a cheque for <$ 4 , (H.H) and
L\.":!
Sl post --dated cheques for $ 165 to the employer I'nth a
cover letter. (Attachment 8)
~q" By 1 et t er dated July 18~ lq94~ Mae Scott. ac~nowledges recelpt
of the cheque for $4, ()()() and the post-dated cheques She
also as~:s Mr Petrullo to provide the amounts that he
prom~L sed dUlring their l"1ay :lst meet.ing~ namely an additlonal
'$1 , non and addl t i on !:.i 1 Df.:lSt -cheoues: (I~t.tclchment 9)
'2:0 On Oct:ober- "0 1991- ~ Debra Fi 5I-',er-, Human Eesour' c es Consultant,
k~..J
~.Jrote t.o Mr Fetrullo regarding the b,,"\l ance of his:. over-
payment and to conf i rom t.he amount reCE'l ed to d<?te With
lc'es:.pec:t to t.he 1"\ ,3 'y 1 ~ 199,1 aqreemE~nt , the gri E,'VOI- 1',1 a s:
$2. ()611 in arrE'ars The grievor was as~ed to pr-OVl de the
total amount past due~ pI us post-c.ii:i\t.ed c:hf2ques for the
balance of the amount. ;:Jwi ng (Attachment 10)
""L November lO~ 1994 and December 9~ 199il, Debra Fisher
e'-ma i 1 ed Ivlr Fetrullo regarding the outstanding ovelr -
payment. (Attachment 11)
~.-. January 20~ 1995~ Joan Finnie~ Team Leader Human Resources,
~.~
wrote to t1r Petrullo regarding the balance of t.he over--
- 4 -
payment owing and indicatina that the net amount of his
~~2\) iVl pL':Iyment. wC,\uld be applied tC,\war-ds the debt i-f the
bal ancE': of $7 ~ 9:52 27 was not received by :::; ()() p m on
,J anuarov "-il::- 1 c;9~) (Attachment 1:; )
.L J,
.~; Dn January 2~5 , 19'75, the grievor roesponded to this letter
HE' s,,:d d h E~ c: C,\L.d d not pay the amount rf'?que~~ted i::\nd th2\t he
was pr-epared to issue post-dated cheques in an amOL\Ilt. less
t.han $5 ,0 per month He al so n:o?quested that his por-tion
Df the ~'.L.() \VI pal' out bf.? f c:wwC':il'-ded to him (At t i:olchment :I. )
3.l.1 t: At the r-equei::;t af Sophie Dennls~ Directar-, H:3mi 1 ton AI"ea,
a meeting trJas helel in Hamilton on January 31, 1995 First.,
the gr i evot-, Bill \;JJ:i 1 hel m, Dan i'1acInnis, and Sophie Denni ~:
met to di':::cus"3 the bi-monthlv amounts that the gr-ievor
~'Jas payi ng Lat.er- , Geor-ge Sutton joined the gr-oup to
discus"3 the fat e of the gr 1 evor- s pot-tion of the ~;20 1'1
payout.
c:: At the first meeting. it \l-Jas agreed that~ the gr-levor o'
J :::>
payments wOl.ll d be reduced fl~om $265 to $125, twice per
month, bt'?qi rmi ng Februar-y 9, 1995
036 {~t the second meeting, the employer s representatives took
the position that they had the authority to seize the entire
amount of the grievor s parol. i on of the $2U M payout They
gave the gri eVOlr two optlons:
1 tohe ent i roe l:\mount would be applied against his debt
oWlng to the nunl str-y;; or-
0, $1~, 521 78 ,auld be paid directly to his mortg,:1ge
.L.
holder-, and the remaining $.2, ()()O would be pi::,i d to
t.he ministry In respect of the debt.
This is conof i rmf?d in an e-mail fr-om Mr- Sutton to the gr- i e\, or
U-ittachment 1A)
~'7 On Februaro ,I 6.. 1995. Mr- F etr-ull 0 wrote to Eber-hard Foelzl
pro\, i di ng information regarding hi <;:, mortgage hol d(o:?r
:t:l p e-mail dClted Febr-uary 8, 1995, Mr Foel z 1 conf i r-med
t.he deposit of $ 1 , 521 78 to Mr Fetrullo 5 mortgage holder.
2"<:;1 On February iLl, 1 ':r95 , the ministrv del i \, er-ed a cheque to
the griever in the amount of $2, ()t)()
L\u A:::. e)f February 23, 1995, the qrievor was put bacl on the
Corpay system, WhlCh allowed for dir-ect deposit of h 5
paychequE's to his ban~ account.
41 The grievor off sick from March .~ 1995 until
was o.
~- ~
-- 5 -
l'1al'''ch 27, 1 cjlcr5
4..:_ The gr i F.,:,vor- f i 1 ed thE' grievancE~S un Mi:'lrch 1. and "'-
The gr J. evance of March 1 , 1995 reads, in part
"1 I grieve that the unl ah'ful seizure of my r-lassification
grievance settlement payout funds is punitive, inequitable
and an \"lnreas-,onabl E? e er- c i S.F.? of manaqf2ment r-iqht~:; p ur ~:;u an t
to the Collective Agreement, The CrcH'm Employees Bargaining
Act and the Fl.lblic Servi r.:e Act
-, In conjunction IPJi t h and addition to ( 1) , I grieve that
"'-
the employer- be estopped (ba~::;ed on the principle of
estoppel) iTom past and future recovery of the emp 1 over- s
cdIeged over"payment of ~'Jages: , since It is inequitable to
force restitution and fUI~thermore the grievor has mate:--ially
changed his circumstances since September, 199:-! ~~nd
especially ;ince this emp 1 oyel~ initlated o/erpavment of
Febt-uary 199/~ II
The grievance of March ,., 1995 reads, in j:3c:\I~t
.t..!I
"i gl~ i eve that the employers act i ems:. in unlawfully seizing my
grlevance settlement payout funds, withholding of wages and
untimel'l dis-,tr bution of pay cheques has cl~eated unnecessary
stres<5 and mental anguish in violation 0+ Section 18 1 of the
Collective Agreement II
A tDtal of fourteen (14) sepal~ ate items of rE?lief are claimed in the two
L..) grievances
The grievor is an Occupational Health and Safety Inspector in the
Ni ag~'1ri"'. Office of the t'hnistr,l of Labour He s-,tarted in that position in
Januar'y 1988 The gl~ie or is mary-iee:! c:.~nd r-Ias tl-"Iree L) children ages
eight.een (18), fifteen (15 ) and fourt.een (14 ) The gr- i evor present.ed a
subs-tanti a1 amount of evidence in support of the t~'m (:;~) g:--ievances Mr
I,-Ji 11 j. am Wilhelm, another Occupational Health and Safety Inspector in the
Niagara office, also ga.ve evi dence on behalof: o-f the Union l'1r ~\Ii 1 hel m
ha~s been a Union Steward since 1 98:~ He i ,- also a co-chairperson of the
. .::>
Local Employee Relations Committee 1'11~ Wilhelm was familiar with the
- 6 -
pr-ocessing of the gr-ievor- s complaints As noted i.n the Agr'eed St!:.~tement
Of F<-"\c't , hE' at b:-?nc:lE!I::l the meetings 0+ May 31, 199Ll and January .:: 1. , 1 99~5 a
the grievor s Union repr-esentc:.\t i ve The 30112 witness for the Employer VJas
Mr Geor'ge ~31.1ttDn, an Ernp 1 oyef"> Fi.elat.iclnS', Consul.ti::""\nt. wIth the Human
F<E'sources Br anch 0+ t.he Ministry of Labour. MI~ Sutton attended both of
the af orement i clned +'
mee~lngs
The C;p~ 1 evor \.'Jas. a~\!a 'l from WOI~ I, due to the recurrence of a wor f --
related lnJury 1n the pf2r i od from r-1Ugust 9, 1993 to Februclry 21, 199iJ. He
r'ec:el ved ~~hol~t term si.d leave benef 1 ts from the Emplo/er {Ol~ t.he entir-et'V
0+ thi.s pE.'r i od In February, 17>94, the Worfers Compensation Boal~d
detel'"lTli ned that the grievor l'Jas enti tled to worfers compens.:."!t 1 on benefits
in respect C).f this ame period That Board subsequently issued a cheque
to the gr i t~VClr in the amoLlnt of $14,751 0:::: Without getting into the
compie ities of the matter, this double payment created a situation in
which the Employer ~\!as legitimately entitled to claim repayment of the
amount it paid to the gr'i evor by ~'l/a y of short ter-m sick leave benefits
Th:i.s c12'.im ~.,.as advanced in a timely fashion in February, 1994
The meeting of February 7, 1994 is referenced in paragraph numbers 9,
1 (), lL t'l , c: and 14 of the (~greed Statement Of Fact Ht this meeting,
the gr'i e lor W 2'. ':; as~ed to r-epay the SLIm of $12,Cll() "":!' L. This figure
'_ w.
rEpl~es.ented the net amount received by the grie Ol~ from the Employer after
deductions The gross amount of sid leave bE".'nefits totalled $17,947 -'
prior to any deducti ems The grie'l.or, at the hearing, did not seriously
dispute the quantum of the net c], ai m. He stated that the figure of
$12,()lU _.6 was 'fairly accur"ate" and that it ~\jas "pr-obabl y in the
ballpark" He testified further that the net amount received "probably
- 7 -
dDes WOlr I out to somethinq in that ar'e<i.'1" I am sc:\tisfled from a review of
the documentation f I 1. E,d ~ and 1n particular e: hibit #4 and at tar.:hment #1()~
that t.he net amount paid to the gr- i eVOlr 1n .the pel~ 1 od relevant to thi !;:,
di!:E.pute ~'Jas~ in fact~ $l2~()l() b
At. the meet 1 ngs; of Febn..lar~f 7~ 1994 and t1a)' _ 1 , 1994 (as ref erTed to
in para~lraph numbers ")'":!, 24~ c:: .....6 and '2.7 of the (igreed Statement u.f
..:.. - , .s.~J~
Fact)~ the grievor el- preS';S',ed concerns. aboL\t deductions made from his 51 c~
1. eav'e (:heques in respE.ct of the Soc: i a1. Contl'-act cind pension and benefIt.
cont.ributions Nore spec if i C 2-d 1 Y ~ he felt thc:\t the Emp 1 oyeJr vJas not
giving him cr-edit for these various deductions By letter of t-1ar-ch 1t::'
,J~
1994~ Ms:. F,osser ~ the D :i. s t!'- i c: t. f'lanager- , attempted to addlress the issue of
Social Contlract Deductions She stated therein
"As agreed by yOU~ you ar-e to return the net amount of your
cheques, 3. e $ 1 :~ ~ () 1 ) 36, cover- i ng pay dates of September q
. ~
1. 9(.7:' through February 10, 1994 (the 5i cl t.ime paid to you by
us which has now been paid by vJCB) This will reduce your
salary to zero therefore all associated deductions for this
peri od are also automatically cancelled II
<Attachment ""- emphasis mine)
-' !II
The ques.tion of deductions was <:1.1 so the subject of comment in a letter of
May ::1~ 1994 from Ms Mae Scott., l-'Iuman Rt:?sources: Consultant, to the
gr" i evor ':::lhe stat.ed t.herein Cl" f olllJ\f..ls
/I r,,::J p 1'- 0'/ 1:\ 1 w,,:\s:. recei. ed fr-om vJol'-j er~. Campen ation to grant
you pa/ment. effecti'/e AugLlst 2(), 19"1::: There.f: ore you
~:;h elLl 1 d not. ha'. e r '.?cei ved t.he I~'h ni s:t.rv o.f !._.ab our cheques
dated September 9~ 1993 t.hrough Ff::bru,::Iry 1 (>, 1991.J. To
recover these pay cheques~ we require repayment by YOLl of
the net pays and we will recover all associated deductions
from the appropriate parties~ i . e. UIC~ CPP, Revenue Canada,
OPSEU and the amount deducted for Social Contract days will
be recovered from MBS. We agreed that we would retain the
benefits, paying the employer S portion, if YOLl would
provide us with the employee~s portion in the amount of
$222.81- Similarly if you provide us with $1,575.86 your
pension will not be affected II
- 8 -
({.)t tc:\chment , emphasis mine)
It is apparent from all of the evidence that the gl" i evor' die! not
fully understand the significance 0 paving the net, as opposed to the
gross, amoLlnt He Il<Jas undf.'2r the misimpression that he ~'J;::\ s;, , 111 effect,
bE.~i nq c\sl:'ed to fund the deductions a r.:.econd time Thi s ~\jas clec:\rly not
t.he Cc~3e hat.her-, the "zer-oing-out" pr-ocess Llsed by the Emplo 12r- ~lc'S
tant.2\mount to a ci"mcellc~tion of the initial !:.(?t of deductions This
lr'esu\. t We;?S discussed 1n the \,'Ir- it. t en St ar;Jt: 2 l~espons;e of V J Crew dc",-ted
jVlay 1= 1995 That response read, :i.n par-t
..i.-.-1,
"~'.lhi 1 e the total amount may be i n d i sp ute ~ there is mutLlal
<."Ie I: nowl edgement thcd: a s cd o:.'Ir" I overp<=,yment to YOLl did oer.:L\l~ ,
r'esulting from the r-etroaetive awaT d of w.e B benefits to
)lot-:, in the form of a cheque for $14,751 Cl3 ic:::sued directly
to you by the Wod ers Compensation Board Thi,s award
co"ereel the pf.?r i Dd I-'klgust 2( ), lCf93 to January 3() , 1994,
dur1ng which ''10U continued on the payr-01.1 of the employer-,
on si cl --1 ea\o e stat.uS'" and received (according to the
emp 1 o't'er- s records) net p.::\yment 50 (af ter' deductions) totalling
$ 1 ::, (I 1 u '36 The emplo/er has demanded that you repay this
amount ( i e. $12,()10 36) as ~-~ell as pay your share of
employee benefits pr-emiums (~~2:22.81 ) and pension contribution
($1,575 86)
DUt-l ng the meeting, Vou e: pr-essed concern regar-ding the
1 at t er two of these items, i nd i cat i ng YOLlr belief that you
had already made these bene.fi ts and pension ccmtr i buti ons
f r.::l~ the per-iod in question, and pointing to a pay stub for-
1'."lovember 18, 199::. which rf~f 1 E'~cted deductions for- the~:e
it. efWc- ~'Jh 3. 1 e I can undelrstand the cont. usi on ar-ound this
matt:?r-, it lC i mport<.1nt to note that the rety-'oacti \,e W C B
cn~ar' cj ef of ect i VE?1 Y O\- er-r-.i. der; 3"y sal al~y payments made, E'i ther
dir-ectly to IOU, or- on your- b;?half througl"', employee pr-emiums
and contr- i but ion,:" during the period c Cl 'Ier ed bV the a\.\lar-d
fly requesting U',at 'lOLl rE'fund only the o..~.t, pay ments recf.-'!i ved,
<;"nd 'jot tho':;e premi LlffiS and contributions paid on your behalf,
t.lle emp 1 oyer- i '" acting on the basis that these additional
. -,
amounts wer-e not, in effect, r-emitted on your- behalf On
thE? other- hand, had the employer requested th<.\t YOLl repay
the gr-Clf,;,S amOLlnt, i n c 1 L~d i n 9 tho:;e premi Llins and contributions,
it could not then also r-eqLlest that YOLl nO\o'J make those
additional pi:wments Simply pLlt, the r-etroactive cancellation
of salary payments mean=: that n,9. f Llnds ~.:>hoL.ll d have been paid
- 9 -
eJ. ther- to you~ 0'''" to other-~ on 'your- b E:?h ,;:11 f "
(e~ hi bit 17)
I accept that the above e: cer-pt. fr-om the r-espon~e accur-ately de::;crlbes t.he
impact o.f t.hp Emplo er- clalminr,;J r-epa'y ment. of just the net. amount received
In summiar-y, I am satisfied t.hat the Employer- could pl~oper- 1 y as~ the
gl~' i evor- to pay his shar-e of the employee benefits in the amount of $ r;~', -, 81
k":".L.
and his pE'l'lsi on con'll'"' i but ion in the amount of $1,575 86 Indeed~ I nDte
that. the apPI~Dach talen b\, the Emplover is a Ii s the grievor- :;:. penslon
contr-ibution ser-v E.d to maintain the continuity of his pension as well as
to avoid an inter-est penalty Ultimately, I conclude that tl-'le gr-i evol'"'
r-ecei ved a fai,r- and accurat.e accounting l-\Ii th respect to the deductions in
i S.!'':;Ul::'?
For r-easons which ~\ler-e not fully e: plained, the (,~r- i evor did not
rE'ceive pay cheques in the b\lo c;;::) month per-iod follol-\'ing his retur-n to
wo,""! This failure ll'~d to the -filing of a gr-ievance dated Apr-il 1 :I. , 1994
The mciter- i a1 part of the grievance r-ead..;
"STATEI"IEN r OF' i.:7JF\ I Ei)ANCE
I gr-ieve that the emp I CPy'er- s action in the tot a I gar-nishing
of my ,.;alar-y', "";i nee Februar- I :21::;t, 199(j.~ ~\li thOLlt notice,
consultat on or hearinrJ is unreas.on<7:\bJ e~ ar-bi tr-ar- and
discrimInatory and constitute:; unnecessary har-dsrd p and
c:Iur-e~-:;s upon m'~sel'f and f2\mi 1 'I
SETTLEI"IENT DESIF\ED
1. Th ,It <".\1 1 gl".\rni shi ng action cease <,-"nd d e~::.i !i t until
mutually accept<=\bJ. e ter-m~. of I""epayment can be agreed
to, including a detailed wr-itten analysis of whc:,t
monies legitimately have to be included in the repayment
,,"', That the gr-ievor- be monetarily compensated for- any and
..:..
~SIC) e pen::;es i neLlI'Ted in the pur-suit and r-esoll.Ition of
this m".\ttel~ "
(Attachment 6)
- 10 -
As noted in paragraph number "' " of the Agl'"'eed StC':\tement Of Fact, the
...:.....:-
gl'- i e\. or G bi~cl wages \i~er'e pi"i d shortl'>, ,,,,fter the f il i ng of the gr- i evance
Th(7? gr i evance wt:\':; then withdrawn. In viet.\I ot this wit.hdrawal, and subiect
to th? he.::\lth and safety complaint r cd ":,ed i, n the gr-i evance of l'1arch r~
.....,
1995,. it is unnecessary to address either the issues r <:'Ii sed in this first
gr i e'v ance aI'"' the evidence presented relating to same
The ~~r i evor testified that his pal c h eq Lter; \i\ler"e "continuoLlsly" late
i r} the period f)~om Apri 1, 199Ll to F~?bF'L1ar !, 1995 It. \i'Ja~~ t.he thrust of
his evidence that the cheques wet- e gener-all y one (1) to tv-Io <:2) dayS 1 ate
He s,tated that he twice drove t.o Toronto to actually pi cI up his: cheque~.::.
In those i n .5tance'~, the Employer provided the grievor with time off \i\lor~:
tCI male the td. p!::" ThE~ grievor as.ser'ted that this recurring pat tel~n of
late cheques created problems for him in terms of meeting his obligations
to his mor'tgi-.:\g€?e and other cr-edi tors:, I note in this regard that, for- at
least a portion of t.his per-iod, the grievor- in addition to his salary h~d
access to the funds he received fr-om the Wor I.: er s Compensation Boar-d.
The grle/or was removed from the Employer- s Cor-pay system ln e2\1~ 1 y
FE1bruary, 1994 From that point until F~'?bruar-y , 1995, he was paid b:>, way
of h 2m d dr'ah1n cheques I was led to bE>l i E~v f2 th,,;\1: this form of payment was
ut.i 3. 1. 2€:o>d to avoid the automat.ic dE'ducti on 0+ dmou Its ol,'Jing to the Ministry
of Labour. It \'\loul d appeal~ from the evi dE-nee that the 12\te receipt. of
cheqLle".~, as descd, bed abo\le~ t-JaS, Ii If'? 1 Y rE'1 ated to the fact they "'Iere hand
drawn
In his evidence :i n-'chi ef, the gri, evor- testifil-:"?d that he had the
intention to r"epay the amount owing to the Employer once he r-eceived a
pr"oper accc.1Ltnt i ng. He stc.\ted that he realized he owed money to the
- 11 -
l"'Ii ni stry ot Labour fhi s intent i em 1 ~:; reflected in his 1 et t er dated
,J anLlary ,..,..,.. 1995 tC) ,Joan FinniE'~ Actinq Team Leadel~ . Human F\esources,
k":~
whel"ei n he stated, "I have been willing to settle this matter since
February, 1994". It is also evidenced by the fol]' 0lo'J1 ng action!: as:.
referenced in the Agreed Statement (Jf Fact
( 1 ) the grievor "acquiet:c:ed" to the repayment s:.cheme propos:.ed by
i"ls Scott, on behalf of the Emp]. Oy f.?r , at the meetlng of 1'1ay _ 1 ,
1994 vJh i 1 e the gr- i e'v or mc:tY not have been entirely s:.ati~~fied
with the terms o.f thE! arf'"'angement, he ne/ertheless proceeded to
forwar'd a $4 ~ OUU lH) cheque to the Employer together with si
( 6) post--dated cheques, Each in the amount of $265 00
Mr. Wilhelm!, in his testimony with respect to the above-mentioned
meeting~ stated that there was never any resistance on the
gr i eVc.lr s par-t to r'epay the debt. He e pressed the same opinion
in his correspondence of February ~. and February 8, 1995 to
....
Thea Her- rnan , Deputy Minist.E.~r of Labour (e>:hi bi t.s 7 clnd 6'.1
lrespectively) ;
(i 1) at. the initial meeting held on January 31:'1 1995, the Employer
accepted the gr i evor- s proposal to reduce his pavments on the
debt. to $1:25 00 ttrJi ce per mont.h This trJ a s: in recognition of
the gl~ie or s tenLlOLlS f i nanci (,;d situation SLlbseqLlent to
thE' meeti.ng~ the grievor provided a S;.E"'" 1 es. of post-dated
cheques in the reduced amount;
(lii) a repayment obligation was r-ecognized by the grievor in the
grievance of April 11 , 1994~ reproduced above As noted~ the
Settlement Df3si red portlon of the grievance form included
- 12 -
the following request "That ':'1.11 garnishing action cease and
desist until mutually acceptable terms of repayment can be
agreed to, including a detailed written analvsis of what
monies: legitimately have to be included in the r-epc:lyment".
I am satisfied, on a review of all of the evidence, t.hat the grievor
was not coerced or compelled to agree to the repayment s:.chemes cited in
t.he Aql~eed Statement Of Fact. To the contr ar y, I find that he
CDn!:.~ i stent I y acl nowl edgE?d his obliqat.ion t.o repay tj-',e d0.?bt right up to the
filing of the gr-ievance of l"lar'ch 1 , 1995 It wa..., at th<::lt juncture the
grievor first asserted the pocition thc:lt the Emplo,>,er should be es;topped
t~-om past and futur-e y-ecovery of "the employer' ,~ alleged over'payment of
..;.
(;Jc.iges"
Pi:\ragraph numbel~s r, :::;;"':!" , .4 ~ '7'6, 37~ 38 and "79 of the (1:;)reed
"_..:.. ~
Statement Of Fact r-e.l ate to tr-Ie gr i evor ,- ent i t.l ement to a part. of the
-~
$20, ClO(), 000 ()O grievance moratorium fund, and to the Employer s attempt to
set off sLlch entitlement agiu nst hlS outstanding obligatlQti to the
MinH;try. Q.f the net amount, $1,5..:..1 78 was for-warded directly to the
gr i eVOlr s mor.tgagee I am S",at isf i ed that the Emplover did not tal. e such
actIon on 2\ uni lc\ter'"i::\l bas3-s I nst.€?C:\d, I f nd that. the funds l<>Jer e sc
'fono.Jal"ded on 1 y <\:{f ter- the gr- i evor r-aised a concern about ;-~ 1:5 mortgage
arr-ear-s ~<Jhi 1 e the i dE~a to mal e this payJTent may ha\le come f r-om jvlr
Sutton, I conclude that it. t"-'as effected p .\rSUclnt to the grl E:~'v or ~
C:\uthori;:,ation and direction
The Employer initially indicated t.O the gri eVOlr that the $..:.., (H)(J (It
balance of t.he payment would be offset against. his debt This did not
occur- largely 3S a cons:.eqL\ence of Mr Wilhelm's i ntervent.i on on behalf of
-- 13 -
the gr-ievor-. The grievor received this $2~ ()()(). on on FebrL\F.\ry 1/j. ~ 1995
It appri'ars:. f Y- Llm the evidence that thf:.~ ot.hf:.~r' i nspectur-~:: in the Nl i::\C~lm-a
Office rE!ceived their payouts on or about Januar-y 26~ 199"5 In vi.ew of
thE" unique c i y-cumstances of the gri ev OJ~ s: ca~.:e, I am unablE~ to find that. a
del i..'i}f of appro~ i matel 'I twent.y <:::0) dayS \.\le\S e ce.:;sive
In the .f i nal C:lnal)lS: i r~, I cone 1 ude thc:'\t t h er e was:. no unlaw-ful selzure
o.f the c 1 as~}i f i cati on gl~ i evanc:e settlement payout funds a~ claimed 11'1 t.he
clr-ie\,ances of March 1 and March ,.., 19.i5 Simpl), stated~ the 91'- i t~vor-
.1- ,
received the3e funds thr-ough the payments de::;cribed 11'1 thE' c;,bo'....e two (2 \
pay-agr-i:iphs I have not been per'suaded that the Employer~ lr1 its dealings
,I Iii I lJ I' i. lor, acted in a way which could be char actel~ i z ed as punitive,
1 fH::'ql. i t 11 e or unr-e""sonab 1 e While 1'1r- Sutton may have initially en~ ed by
telling t.he grievor- that the Emp 1 oyel~ was entitled to c.l r;:;et off under- the
pr-ovi si rm:J of the E_ u Q..l.J_.f;....._~.!~r:yi...f e __?i \; t , he ver-y quicUy therei::tftt'::r pr-ovided
him with a written memor-andum outlining the aLtthor it Y underwhich the
Emp 1 oyer- IrJas purporting to act. (12 hibit. 5) I thi Ii!~ that thi s err(Jr- ie
immatel~ial given that. the issue of seizure was rendered moot t.hrough the
Emp 1 ayer- s timely payout of the funds: in que:::t i em.
Th(=~ gl~l e Ol~ ,,:\I..=.o Ir ::,1 SE'd 2 concern ,::It the hearJ.ng ,0\ ..:, to the qu.:wtuln of
hIS p.:~yout The gr'ose .;:,mount of hie entltlement \i'Jae $5, 164 60 The net
'fJ.gL\l~e wa.3 $:::~5:::1 78 fhe gr-l evor' test1f1E>d that h13 entitlement was
c:.ppro~ i matel '; $LI()() {)i) 1 e~~s. t.han t.hat. received b ot.her inspect.ors in the
office Mr Sutt.on in his evidence, acknowledged t.hat an error had been
made with respect to certi::\i Ii of the deductlons em the grlevor s P<::lyout
cheque More specifically~ the Corpay system automatically registered
deductions in reE,pect of U 1 C. , S H ~1. H , L.T I P and SUPLIFE 11'1 the
- 14 -
total amount of $''(.02 0'3" These amounts had actually been deducted
previollsly in the period when the gF'i evor s chequE?!:;; were t-'Ii::\nd dr- a~\ln The
eFTor occurred in this i, nstance as the Corpay system did not have a record
of the ear-I i er deduct ions. Briefly stat.ed. what occurred ~'\Ias a doubl,,?
deduction The Employer representatives agreed that the c\mOLlnt of $f~()2 ()3
was~ in fact~ owing to the gri eVOI~ and would bE? credited tow.:wdE:: his:
outstanding abliqation to t.he Mini:::;t.ry of Labour Subiect to this
cor'rection~ I accept the Emploier's aCcOLlnt i ng o.f the settlement payout c:t ~~
~,h Ol<'Jn on e hibit 8 in thi:::; pr-oc:eeding
~)s stated ear-I i er ~ the g/~i evor claimed thl'-ough the gr-l e ance 0+ Marc:h
1 ~ j,<'jl95 that "the employer be e:::;topped (ba:::;ed on the principle of
estoppel'> .from past and future reco\/ery of the employer s alleged
overpayment of wage:::;~ ,jince it is inequitable to force re:::;titution and
further-mor-e the gri eVOI'- has materlally changed h s circumstances si nCE'!
Sept. ember 199'3" and especially since this employer initiated ovel~pavment of
Febl~uary 1994" . The Union relied on the following a\;',)aF'ds in support of
this position IA.Ylpr,. 1u77/89 (Samuel s) ; t:Jit,!;,b..~1_1. ~ _91/91 (Samuels)
In T..::-'l:d..Q.[.. ~ the grievor recei vE!d a large retroactive payment She
immediatel questioned the pa lr-oll office tD det€?rmi nE'.:- ~'Jhett-ler a mista~e
hdd been madE' The gr- i evor l-'JE\S iassLlr-E?d that she was entitled to the
money On t.he ba~,;i :; of this assurance, the gr i e /01'- and her hLl3band
.1 ',:..... umf;.,?rj ~everal nevJ fir13ncial obI igc:\tj,onr::. Unfor-tun'1t.ely~ a cl E?y-i c:al
err-or had in fact been madl':? and the grievor should not have received the
pC\ymr..::-nt. She wac informed of t.he mistal e appr'o~ i matel y nineteen (J '7' )
months after" it occurred. The Board rejected the gr i evol~ ::; claim that ::.he
should not have to pay bacl anything Instead~ it limited the qLl.:\Iltum of
- 15 -
the deduction from her bi-wee~ly pay cheque to $2u.ou The gr-ievor had
(~ar- 1 i er- a s:.sf?r-ted that such figur-e was mot- e manaqeab 1 f.~ than the amount
sought by the Emp 1 oyel~
The facts In Ta lor- are clE?ar-ly di sti ngui ~~habl E? from the i ns.t,?nt
.........L_.......__..
case l'1r Petrullo was never infor-med or assured that he was entitled to
the overpayment To the contr-ar-y, the Employer- c 1 ",\i med repayment as s:.OOf1
as it d i 5C over- ed the pr-oblem t1r Wilhelm, in his evidence, te3tified
that the EmplD/er- never indicated it ~'J2'\S pr-epared to forgive all Dr pcH~t
{J.f the debt dLw i ng the meetings of 11ay .::; 1, 1994 and ,Januar-y :1, 1995 HE'
noted that the focus was then on r-epayment. ")ddi tionall >" thel~e 15
absolutely no evidence to suggest that the gr- i evor- matel'-lally changed his
po.sition on the bar.~is of somE' repre!::',entat.i on made b\ the Employer Simply
stated, ther-e Wi:.'1S neither a representation nor a detrlmental 1 . as
re.Iance
contemplated by the doctrine of estoppel Finally, I note that In I.f:I..Y....L9r ,
the Employer \i'Jas able to collect the overpayment, albeit pursuant to B.
l~edL\ced deduction, despite the r-epresentation i:.ind the l"'el i ance on same
In t'.!..L!:: c t!.~l.t, the grie\,or received an overpayment of about $~'2, 5i)() UO
gross. This tra islated to appr-o;.: i mCiltel y $1,5uu.uu net in ter-ms of his
ta~e heme pay The grie Dr- was as\. ed to repay t.he e~:cess amount ~
,.e
n:?cE~i vf?d a mernor andum from the Office Manager which advi sE.d t.hat the
outstanding balance WdS ,>1 ~ 554 41 He was as~ed therein to ma~e
arl'"i::mgements to pay the whole amount. 01'" tCI pay .it in inst.allment.s The
gl'"le\lor subsequently told the Office Manager thaot he \-Jas content t.o repay
the balance shown in fifteen ( 15) deductions of $100 (I(J each. l'hi s is
not~ however, what occur-red When the payroll department got the me3sage
about the Slun nn deduction per pay cheque~ they tr"eatE.~d each $1uO Ou ac:: a
. OJ
- 16 -
payment on the gros"i amount. ovel~pai d, and made twenty-five (25)
deduct i ems Ultimat.ely, thf-2 gr- J. 1:1 VOl'- S~ r f.7.'p a y mE;~n t. of t.he gro!:~s amc)unt. 01-'11 nq
($2,500 ClO) wound up a'- about $ 1 , 5()( I ( )(J net. over twent y-.f i ve (25) pay
c:..:>
cheques When thE? gr'i f:?vor' di "~covef-ed \-'Jhat had happened, he f 1 1 f:~d c:\
grievance claiming that the Employer had made an unjust paYI~oll deduction
He as,sel~ted therein that he should not have to repay more than he was
asl. ed to in the original memo fi~om trH? Office Manager
The Beard in tlLt~:Jl.f:?J_l. found that the g t~ i t~" or had to repay all of the
everpayment, e~: cept to the e>: tent that the amoL\nt or manner of r- ep "-'I /men t
was lnequltable ln all the circumstances In this regard, it adopted tt"18
approach tal. en in t.he T.~.:tlgr.. der.:i.;ion. The Bc,ar-d, ultimately, deci dE'd to
award t.he qriev'or $1 ( )(..1. (iO as: compensation Its reas-,oni ng for so doing lS
captured 1n the following e cer-pt from the aw;::\r- d
"Hel~e the 11inistr"'y failE~d tll give the grievor t~L\f f 1 c i ent
i nfol'-mat ion ccmcerni ng the amount necess;::\r-y to ma}e the
1'1i ili str-y (-Jhol e (i n particular, the Ministr-y .f ai 1 ed to
ma}:e c 1 ea.r to the grievor- the differ-ence between v,lhat
he owed 9Lo~.2. and ho~" thi !:;. would a.f f ect his o.5~.t p a j
cheque) The October 1989 memor-andum fr-om the Office
1"1anager \-'Jas mi s:.l ead i n9 and the gr-levor- made his under-
ta~: i n9 to repay (and consequently, or-ganized his family r:--
-,
-finances and special purchases:. ) based on a mi sunder-standi ng
c:lused by the Ministrl In these cir-cumstances, ther-e was
a meac:ur-f.'? of :i.nequitab.Llit'y in the over;::d :I. repayfTH;?nt
ai'-I~angements, and the qr- i evor- ought to I~E'cei ,_ e sOlBe
compensation .f or- this:. I!
(page 4)
In :TIj iudgment, the factuCl.l conte t in tti....tf: h ~lJ_ IS cleal~l'y
di sti ngui st"labl e from the cur-r-ent case Her-e, the Empleyer qave the
grievor- sufficient infer-mation a::. to the amount of the overpayment
I am s~atisfied that it made r-easonable efforts to e plain the I~aticmale
for claiming the net sum of $12,!l10 36 As stated earlier-, the gr-ievor at
- 17 -
the hearinq d1d not sel~ i ousl y d1spute the acc:uri:1CY of this net figure
Similarly~ I believe that. the Employer adequately e~ plained the need fOt-
the gr- i evor to make thl~ adeli ti cmal payment.s in I~espect of pension c:~nd
bEmefits Simpl; put, the ~: i nd of mis:ta~e or mlsunderstandino lf~hi. eh
occurreel in M..t.t..l;Jl!?ll. was not pr-esent in this i nstCilnce
In I.gLLL9..!:.. , the Board st.ated the gene'~al law a:; follows:
"The law ln this situation is fairlv c 1 ear- l~here mont~V is pc:-\id
because of a mi s,tal. e of fact, g en er ,=111 'I t.he receiver must
l~er.:)c\ the money, either becc::\use this iE: thE'? eoui t,,~bl e thing
to do, or' because there 1:: consi.dered to be an implied
promise to repay- Howe\. er" , where the rect~i ver ha~:. mater-'i i::\11 y
changed her ci r-cul1istances ~-\S a l~esLlJ. t of the receipt of
the money, so th,::It. it ~'Jol.:l d be i nequi t.::lbl e to force
restitution, this obliqation to r ep ay may be relie/ed .
II
>> . . . . . . . . . .
(page ':' )
Her e , I ha .,12 been unable to find that the grievor materially changed his
ci l~cumstC:inces on the bi:\si s of somet.hing the Employer did or fail ed to do
Further, I cannot i ':501 ate anv factor that v.mu 1 d make it inequitable to
require restitution f:jS a con .sequence ~I I am persuaded that i"1r' Petn.lllo
i. S obligated to pay the total amount of the overpayment The parties at
the hearing I^Jere somewhat. unclear on the quantum outstanding At the
heo:'<T j. ng '"1n .J anuar- y ~1~C_? ;l 1996, cDunsel fDr t.h{~ EmplD er st.3ted t.he amount
o~'Ji ng as of that date as: being $LI,810 .I. l~ . :Jl en the ni::1.ture o.f the
evidence, .... 1:3 not possible for me to fi the actu<.il amDunt out<-::tanding
1 ~
I l{.?ave this: to the palrties i- ., r-e<;:olve
A''- indicated above, the gr 3. evanCE' 0+ JVlarch rl 1995 states t.hat t.he
.~ ..:... ~
"emp 1 c.l'!er s actions in unlawfully seizing my gr3.evance settlement pe\\.Out
.f und~; ~ wi tht"lol di ng of wc\ges and unt.imely distribution of pay cheques has
cn:0at.ed unnecessary stre!:'~s and emotional anquish in violation of Section
- 18 -
18 1 of the ColI ect i ve l~greE.'ment" That provision reads
The Emplo\er !:;",hall cont.inue to mc:d~E.' r€',' ~\!::",ol"li::\b 1 f? ~wo\li S",i ons
;Oi'" t.he safety and health of its emplo,/ee'.'; during the
hours of their employment It is agn~ed tliat both the
Empl oyel~ and t.he L1ni.on ~::;hall co'-operi:.ite to the fulle~t
e tent pos<:.i bl e in the pl"'event i on of accidents i:H)d in
the reasonable pl~omDtion of safety ane! health of all
employees
Ver-y llttle evidence was pre!::;ented with respf.~ct to thi s as.pect. of the
case. It Ylas the thrust of the gr 1 evor" s evidence that hlS dealings with
the Emp 1. oyer o\oer the per" i od material to Un s. di !:;pute C:,:\Llsed him s t r~- (-:! :::. s. It
He stated that he required tr"anqLI...l i LE'rs in onjer' to sleep and that his
blood pl~ es:.sur e was:. "definit.ely high" No objectlve medical evidence was;
tE:-mden:?d in support of this assertion Si mi 1 ar-l y, there is no :;:.01 i d
c')vi dence before me to link the condition all f?ged to c':\nduct on the part. of
the Employer In this regard, I have r.)I'''e 'I:;' oLlsl y determined that the
Employer- did not un 1 a\rJf ull y sE'ize the gr i evor- s. settlement payout funds
Furthel~ the "YJi thhol ding of wages" occurred d .Ir j, ng a period when the
grievor cleal~ly h?d acces:::. to a s:.ubs:,t :"fit i al clmoun t of money received
t.hrough the Wor-ker-s Compensat i em BDal~d In the final analysis, ther'e is
insufficii:mt evidence to SUppOl~t the claim made in the gr'i 12\ ance of March
-. 199"5
1:" ~
(2ln amended T,q In r-espect of the 19/...1 ti:t vear was t i 1 f?d on behalf Df
the grievor (e;hibit 13) The form i ndi Ci:.it.es a..; +OlJ.D~.;.JS: ( i ) registered
pension plan contr i but i on<:, Q"f ~f; " LI6 7 71); d i) emplo(ee CFP contributions:
of $q86 79; and (iii) union dues of -"i5lt:.:;- 64 The Union, for sev'el~al
y-eason:::., tool issue with these figures Firstly, the OF'SELI Pension Flan
1.994 l~nnual P(:?nsi on Stat(~ment In respect of the grievor records 1.991J.
contribut.ions as $'':''''''''''> 59 (e; hi bit 12) Secondly, the Statement of
'..}.<..
- 19 -
Contr-ibutions in r-espect Df CF'P r-ecoF-ds 199'+ contr-ibutions in the amount
of $136 f3Lj (e~ hi bit 1 Lj ) Lastly~ the Union !::" r-l?C or- d of dues r-eceived in
1991 on behalf of the gr- i evor- was $19 {~ -'!" (e; hi bit 15) Notwi thstcmrJi ng
thes:€~ d i ~:,c F- ep an c i es: , -the Emp 1 O'y el'- InSls:ted It held madf? the remi tt,,~ncf:~S: as
shown on the 199'1- rf\. form
On the evidence befor-e me~ I am unable to deter-mi ne why ther-e lS t?:l
var-iance betl,\leen e hibit 12" and e hib t_s 12, 11- and 15 I note, however,
thi::it. the figures on tl--,e latter- trwee ( --') e t"1i bit. ,,~. cOI~r-espond t.o per-iods-
when the (:.:Ir- i eVOI~ was paid through Cor-pav~ In the eal~ 1 'y pal~t of 199 fl. It.
would seem that the deductIons made from the hand dr-i::\wn cheques tor the
balance of the year in r-espect. of pension~ CPP and union dues may not have
been proper-Iv credited to the qr- i evor In view of t.he above--descr-i bed
di scn:?panc i es ~ I cj rect the Employer to r-evi elA) its l~ecords to enSUI~e that
<::ill appr-opriate r-emittances ha~e been made on behalf of the grievol~ as pel~
e~:hi bi t 1~ If thi::: review discloses that the remittances have not~ in
:..'
fact, been made, the Employer- lS to tal:e all necessar'y steps to cor-r-ect
the '::;i tuati on The Employer IS further dir-ected to intorm the gr-Ievor c:t..,
to t.he I~ eSlll t:::: of its investigat.ion and as:- to any remedied action t.alen on
hi bE'half
Sublec:t to the above di r--ecti on, the grievances of ~/larch 1 and ~/larch
,.., 19:;5 al~e dismls:;-E,d
...::...,.
Di::yt ed at LJ ndsot-, Ontar-i_o t.his J 4- J.~ day o -f T U/\.k!.. , 1996
___'Ifl V' _~~_________.______._______
M V Watter-s