Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-0073.UNION97_11_17 ONTARIO EMPLOY~S DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO _ _ GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE "' SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 1S0 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 600, TORONTO ON M5G 1Z8 TELEPHONEITELEPHONE (41tJ) 326-1388 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 600, TORONTO (ON) MSG 1Z8 FACSIMILE/TELECOPIE (416) 326-139tJ GSB # 73/97 OPSEU # 97U049 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (Union Grievance) Grievor - and - the Crown in Right of Ontario (Management Board Secretariat) Employer BEFORE R.J Roberts Vice-Chair FOR THE G Leeb UNION Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union FOR THE D Chiro EMPLOYER Coordinator, C A Negotiations Management Board Secretariat HEARING November 4, 1997 1 SUPPLEMENT AL AWARD In Re Union Grievance and Management Board Secretariat (1997), G S.B No 73/97 (Roberts), It was concluded that "all Go-Temp employees whose IndIvIdual Job assIgnments, when stacked together, total five years or more are el1gIble to receIve severance pay under s. 58(4) of the [Employment Standards] Act." Id, at 7 ThIS conclusIOn was reached m lIght of the shut -down of the Go-Temp operatIOn that took place on February 28, 1997 When the award was Implemented, the employer agreed to stack together Go-Temp assIgnments and tIme spent on unclassIfied contracts to meet the el1gIbIl1ty cntenon of five years or more At the same tIme, however, the employer declmed to consIder as elIgIble to receIve severance pay any Go-Temp employees who had not w5>rked for the employer In calendar year 1996, even If In prevIOus years they had accumulated "stacked tIme" of five years or more At the heanng, the employer defended thIS actIOn on the ground that It was appropnate to 2 mfer that If Go- Temp employees had not worked In calendar year 1996 they were mereh "parked" on the Go-Temp roster while perhaps performmg other employment. ThIS effectIvely placed them m the same posItIon as employees "under an arrangement whereby the employee may elect to work or not when requested to do so", wlthm the meanIng of the exceptIon to payment of severance pay found In s. 58(6)(f) of the Employment Standards Act. ThIs was an Interestmg argument. CertaIn IndIVIduals on the Go-Temp roster mIght well have gone on to greener employment pastures, and abandoned any reasonable expectatIon of workIng for Go-Temp In the foreseeable future These would lIkely be IdentIfied as mdIvIduals who consIstently refused Job assIgnments from Go-Temp over a lengthy penod of tIme such as a year It seems to me that the employer might be entItled to treat such IndIVIduals as havmg voluntanly qUIt at some pOInt pnor to the February 28, 1997 shut-down of the Go-Temp operatIOn, rather than beIng excluded by operatIon ofs. 58(6)(f) of the Act. In eIther case, they would not be ehgible for severance pay ThIS determInatIOn, however, would have to be made on a case-by-case basIs, There does not appear to be any JustIficatIOn for mferrIng that all Go-Temp employees who dId not work m calendar year 1996 fall into thIS category I agree wIth the submIssIOn of the umon that there may be man) other reasons why an otherwIse-eltgible Go-Temp employee mIght not have worked on an assIgnment m calendar year 1996 The sImplest of these would be that the employee was not asked. 3 Accordmgly, the across-the-board approach of the employer In excludmg from payment of severance pay otherwise-elIgible Go-Temp employees who did not work m calendar year 1996, catmot be sustamed, IndIvidual employees who accumulated "stacked time" of five years or more but abandoned any reasonable expectatIOn of contmumg to work for Go-Temp before the shut-down, may be demed severance pay, otherwise, payment must be made I wlll retam JUrISdictIon pendmg ImplementatIOn of thiS Supplemental A ward. Dated at Toronto, Ontano, thiS 17th day of November, 1997 f / R.7I!.Oberts, VIce Chair