HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-2170BLAIS99_05_04
ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO
1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
,
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
t80 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 600, TORONTO ON M5G tZ8 TELEPHONEITELEPHONE (416) 326-1388
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 600, TORONTO (ON) M5G tZ8 FACSIMILEITELECOPIE (416) 32fJ-1396
GSB # 2170/96
OPSEU # 96G398
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEV ANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc Service Employees Umon
(Terry BlaIS)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown m Right of OntarIO
(Mmlstry of TransportatIOn)
Employer
BEFORE Ken Petryshen V Ice-ChaIr
FOR THE Andrew M. Pmto
GRIEVOR Counsel
FOR THE Kelly Burke
EMPLOYER Counsel, Legal Services Branch
Management Board SecretarIat
HEARING Apnl 30, 1999
DECISION
The Mimstry of TransportatIOn employed Mr Terry BlaIS pursuant to an
unclassIfied contract when he was laId off m August, 1996 He had been employed on
SImIlar contracts smce 1988 Mr BlaIS challenged the August, 1996, lay-off m a
gnevance dated September 16, 1996 The only Issue Mr BlaIS pursued at the heanng on
Apn130, 1999, was whether he was entItled to receIve severance pay
,
SectIOn 58(6) (e) of the Employment Standards Act excludes an employee from
entItlement to severance pay If the employer of the employee "IS engaged m the
constructIOn, alteratIOn, mamtenance or demolItIOn of bUIldmgs, roads, sewers, pIpelmes,
mams, tunnels or other works where the employee works at the SIte thereof." When laId
off, Mr BlaIS was employed as a zone pamter It IS clear from hIS descnptIOn of what he
does that Mr BlaIS was employed m constructIOn work at the tIme of hIS lay-off. The
deCISIOn of the Gnevance Settlement Board m OPSEU (Group Grievance) and The
Crown in Rzght of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation), (FIsher) GSB FIle No 2588/96
dated February 20, 1998, confirms the agreement of the partIes that employees workmg
as zone pamters are covered by sectIOn 5 8( 6)( e) and are not entItled to severance pay
under the Employment Standards Act.
The Dmon and the Employer take the pOSItIOn that the CollectIve Agreement was
not contravened m thIS case Smce there was no dIspute between them, the partIes argued
.....---..
that I had no JunsdIctIOn to deal wIth the gnevance filed by Mr Blais See, E Blake et al
and Amalgamated Transit Union, (ShIme) GSB FIle No 1276/87, dated May 3, 1988,
OPSEU (Cochran) and The Crown in Right ofOntarzo (Abramsky) GSB FIle No
833/96, dated May 22, 1997 and OPSEU (Duncan) and The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Brown) GSB File No 1488/96, dated November 2, 1998
Mr BlaiS expenenced some dIfficult financIal CIrcumstances when he was laid off m
August, 1996, and he appears to be unable to appreCIate why some employees are entItled
_to severance pay and others are not. However, Mr BlaiS IS covered by sectIOn 58(6)(e)
of the Employment Standards Act and IS not entItled to severance pay I also agree that I
have no JunsdIctIOn to deal wIth thIS matter smce there IS no dIspute between the partIes
Accordmgly, the grIevance filed by Mr BlaiS dated September 16 1996 IS dIsmIssed.
Dated at Toronto, thIS 4th day of May, 1999
/~I~
Ken Petryshen - Vice-Chair