HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-1318POLICY98_02_11
,
ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO
GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
,
1111 SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE800, TORONTOONM5G 1Z8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE (416) 326-1388
180,RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU600, TORONTO (ON) M5G 1Z8 FACS/MILE/TELECOPIE (416) 326-139(5
GSB # 1318/97, 1319/97
CUPE 2412 # SR004, SLOO1
IN THE MA TIER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
CUPE 2412 (PolIcy Gnevance/Lavergne et al)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in RIght of Ontario
(Sudbury & DIstnct Ambulance Service)
Employer
BEFORE R. Brown Vice-Chair
FOR THE R. Carnovale
UNION National Representative
Canadian Umon ofPubhc Employees
Local 2412
FOR THE D RobInson, Q C
EMPLOYER Counsel
Mathews, DInsdale & Clark
HEARING February 5, 1998
-
DECISION
ThIs gnevance concerns the effect of the Social Contract Act on vacatIOn
entItlement after March 31, 1996
Under tIllS collectIve agreement, as under most others, the amount of paid
vacation accrumg to an employee mcreases wIth length of servIce The partIes
agree that the Social Contract Act froze vacatIOn entItlement from June 14, 1993
until March 31, 1996, notwIthstandmg the accmal of servIce m the mtenm. The
freeze was Imposed by s 24(1)
The rate of compensatIOn of an employee IS, for the penod begmmng June
14, 1993 and endmg March 31, 1996, fixed at the rate that was m effect
ImmedIately before June 14, 1993
As s 2 defines compensatIon to mclude "all payments and benefits", the effect of
s 24(1) was to freeze vacatIOn entItlement from June 14, 1993 until March 31,
1996
The dIspute concerns what happens after March 31, 1996 and anses from
s 24(8) of the legIslatIon
"- -I-
-
An employee IS not entItled to any mcreases m compensatIOn after March
31, 1996 by way of,
(a) ment mcreases,
(b) cost-of-hvmg mcreases or other sImilar movement of or through
ranges, or
(c) mcreases resultmg from any movements on any pay scale or other gnd
system, except as prescribed by regulatIon,
m respect of employment dunng the penod begmnmg June 14, 1993 and
endmg March 31, 1996
The employer has mterpreted thIS proVIsIOn to mean employees will never
receIve any credIt for the penod between June 14, 1993 and March 31, 1996 In
other words, the employer has subtracted tIns penod from each employee's
serVIce for the purpose of calculatmg vacatIOn entItlement The umon contends s
24(8) has no applIcatIOn to vacatIOn entItlement relatmg to employment after
March 31, 1996 Accordmg to thIS lme of argument, s 24(8) merely prevents an
employee from claImmg, after March 31, 1996, vacatton entttlement for the
-2-
penod between June 14, 1993 and March 31, 1996, where such entItlement IS
based upon sefVIce between these two dates VIewed m thIS way, s 24(8) merely
'ensures an employee does not receIve after March 31, 1996 compensatIon for the
penod between June 14, 1993 and March 31, 1996, where s 24(1) precluded the
employee from recelYmg such compensatIon before the end of tIllS penod.
I accept the umon's constructIon of s 24(8) for the followmg reasons
On a lIteral constructIOn, tlus subsectIon does what the umon says SectIOn 24(8)
addresses "mcreases m compensation m respect of employment durmg the
period beginning June 14, 1993 and ending March 31, 1996" (emphasIs added)
The focus IS upon compensatIOn for employment dunng the specIfied penod.
Sectlon 24(8) ensures there IS no retroactIve mcrease m compensatIon for tIllS
penod. ThIS subsectlon does not address compensatIOn for employment after
March 31, 1996 In other words, the legtslatIon says nothmg about an employee's
vacatIOn entltlement flowmg from employment after thIS date
ThIs mterpretatlon IS also consIstent WIth the purpose of the Social
Contract Act set out m paragraph 2 of s 1
To proVIde for expendIture reductIOn for a three-year period and to
proVIde cntena and mechamsms for achIeVIng the reductlons (emphasIs
added)
-3-
(
On the umon's readIng of s 24(8), the legIslatIon achIeves Its purpose by
reducIng the costs assocIated wIth vacatIOns dunng the three-year penod endIng
March 31, 1996 As the employer's mterpretatIOn would reduce costs
forever, not Just for three years, It IS not supported by the purpose of the
legtslatIOn.
I note the mterpretatlOn adopted In thIS award confonns to the approach
taken by ArbItrator Mitchmck m an Interest award, dated August 31, 1994 York
Region Board of Education and OntarIO Secondary School Teachers'
Federation Mr Mitc1mlCk drrected that as of May 1,1996 all teachers should be
returned to the posItIon on the salary gnd WhICh they would have occupIed but for
the Social Contract Act
I declme to follow the maJonty award In Kitchener Waterloo Regional
Ambulance and Canadian Union of Public Employees, unreported award dated
April 7, 1997 (Rayner) ArbItrator Rayner embraced a mIddle ground falhng
between the pOSItIOns outlmed above
Accordmgly, we award that s 24(8) does not apply to those employees
who dId not move from one pOSItIon to another on the [vacatIOn] gnd
dunng the tlille penod m questIOn [1 e June 13, 1993 to March 31, 1996]
-
-4-
,
but does apply to those who dId
The gnevance IS allowed and the employer IS dIrected to comply wIth the
terms of the collectIve agreement In respect of employment after March 31, 1996
....,/
RIchard M. Brown, VIce-ChaIr
Ottawa, Ontano
February 11, 1998
-5-