HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-0306.McNally.03.10.16 Decision
Crown Employees Commission de ~~
Grievance Settlement reglement des griefs
Board des employes de la
Couronne
~-,...
Suite 600 Bureau 600 Ontario
180 Dundas Sl. West 180 rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396 Telec. (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2000-0306 2000-1542
UNION# 00A382, 01C036
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(McNally) Grievor
- and -
The Crown In RIght of Ontano
(Mimstry of TransportatIOn) Employer
BEFORE Richard Brown Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Ed Holmes
Ryder Wnght Blair & Doyle
Bamsters and SOlICItorS
FOR THE EMPLOYER Chnstopher Jodhan
Counsel
Management Board Secretanat
HEARING March 24 May 20 July 22 & 31 and
September 24 2003
2
These two gnevances were prompted by the Mimstry of TransportatIOn's decIsIOn to
convert Theresa McNally's status from regular full-tIme to regular part-tIme, WIth a
consequent loss of vacatIOn credIts and pay for statutory holIdays and a consequent
reductIOn In the employer's contributIOn to the cost of penSIOn and health and welfare
benefits
I
Ms McNally began workIng for the mlmstry at the Kenora Avenue office In HamIlton In
1976 and contInues to be employed there She has held the classIficatIOn of semor
lIcensIng clerk OAGI0 SInce 1989 or 1990
Ms McNally Injured her nght knee at work In 1991 and was off work from tIme
to tIme because of thIS Injury She suffered a recurrence In December of 1994 mIssed
some tIme between December and the folloWIng February and was unable to work at all
from February to September In September she returned to the Job wIth a modIfied
schedule Her hours Increased gradually untIl she was workIng eIghteen hours per
week-three days of SIX hours each. Ms McNally Injured the same knee agaIn In
September of 1996 and was off the J ob untIl February of 1997 She fell when her knee
gave out In September of 1997 and dId not work agaIn untIl February of 1999 A medIcal
certIficate completed by the gnevor's doctor dated January 5 1999 charactenzed her
medIcal restnctIOns as "permanent" She receIved worker's compensatIOn benefits for
each Injury or recurrence A letter from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board to the
employer dated June 11 1999 records the gnevor' s entItlement to a "Future EconomIc
Loss award"
Whenever Ms McNally worked between her first Injury and her fall In September
of 1997 she contInued to perform the dutIes of semor lIcensIng clerk. Upon returmng to
work on February 17 1999 she was gIven a temporary placement as an ISSUIng clerk.
ThIS posItIOn IS classIfied as OAG8 but the gnevor contInued to receIve the OAG 10 rate
of pay The duratIOn of her placement as ISSUIng clerk was Imtlally specIfied to be SIX
months, but turned out to be almost mne The gnevor resumed the dutIes of semor
lIcensIng clerk on November 8 1999
3
Ms McNally has never worked more than eIghteen hours weekly SInce returmng
to work In September of 1995 DespIte her reduced hours, she was treated untIl 1999 as a
full-tIme employee for the purpose of vacatIOn, statutory holIdays, penSIOn and health and
welfare benefits In November of 1999 her status was converted to that of a regular part-
tIme employee, and she was told her entItlements would be reduced accordIngly ThIS
announcement prompted the gnevance dated January 11 2000 A second gnevance was
filed on October 11 2000 shortly after the employer Implemented the changes In dIspute
II
The first questIOn to be addressed IS whether the settlement of an earlIer gnevance, filed
In the fall of 1999 resolved the Issues raised by the two gnevances at hand. The umon
contends the settlement establIshes the gnevor' s entItlement to all of the benefits
assocIated wIth full-tIme employment, whereas the employer claims the settlement
confirms her converSIOn to regular part-tIme status
The earlIer gnevance was prompted by the extensIOn ofMs McNally's temporary
placement as ISSUIng clerk. The gnevor set out her obJectIOns to workIng In that posItIOn
In a letter dated September 20 1999 and addressed to LInda Jackson, then central regIOn
manager for dnvers and vehIcles In thIS letter the gnevor noted that her work statIOn as
semor lIcensIng clerk had been "ergonomIcally redesIgned" to SUIt her lImItatIOns and
that the dutIes of that posItIOn allowed her to allevIate the secondary symptoms of her
InJury by ICIng her knee and mOVIng around. She went on to note such accommodatIOns
were not avaIlable when workIng as ISSUIng clerk. The letter closes wIth the gnevor
askIng to return to her prevIOUS Job "wIth the same arrangements that were approved for
me 2 years ago" Read In the context of the entIre letter the word "arrangements" IS a
clear reference back to ergonomIc desIgn, ICIng and mOVIng around.
When her letter of September 20 faIled to produce results, Ms McNally filed a
gnevance, dated October 12, 1999 IndIcatIng the settlement desIred was "that the
employer return me to my posItIOn as OAG 10 semor lIcensIng clerk (supervIsor) for the
hours of work agreed upon due to my workplace InJury" The gnevor met wIth Ms
Jackson on October 29 1999 to dISCUSS the gnevance Also In attendance were Sue
Jurashtchuk, then actIng office manager and Gary Bucullen, umon steward. It was
4
agreed the gnevor would resume her former dutIes on November 8 There was no
dIscussIOn at thIS meetIng about the gnevor's status or her entItlement to the benefits now
In dIspute There IS conflIctIng eVIdence as to whether Ms Jackson provIded any
assurances to Ms McNally relatIng to matters other than her Job dutIes The gnevor
testIfied she sought and receIved an assurance that the arrangements prevIOusly In place
would be maIntaIned, but her testImony on thIS pOInt was contradIcted not only by Ms
Jackson but also by Ms Jurashtchuk.
The deal struck on October 29 was recorded In the folloWIng memorandum of
agreement, sIgned on November 1 wIthout further dIscussIOn
Without precedent and wIthout preJudIce the partIes to the gnevance agree to the
folloWIng as a full and final settlement of the gnevor's gnevance dated October
12, 1999
1 The gnevor wIll work In the posItIOn of Semor LICenSIng Clerk (OAG 10)
on a Regular Part Time basIs (18 hours/week) effectIve November 8
1999
2 The employee agrees to wIthdraw her gnevance dated October 12, 1999
Based upon the alleged assurance by Ms Jackson that past "arrangements" would
be maIntaIned, the umon contends the settlement precludes the employer from changIng
the gnevor's status to regular part-tIme and reducIng her benefit entItlements accordIngly
I am not persuaded by thIS argument. The memorandum of settlement makes no reference
to arrangements Even If the gnevor dId receIve an assurance about past "arrangements"
thIS word IS hIghly ambIguous and could be a reference to ergonomIc desIgn, ICIng and
mOVIng around rather than a reference to benefit entItlement. The gnevor's recent letter
used the word "arrangements" to mean the former rather than the latter If
"arrangements" were dIscussed on October 29 It would have been perfectly reasonable
for Ms Jackson to assume the same meamng applIed.
The employer contends the words "Regular Part Time" In the settlement,
capItalIzed as they are, acknowledge the gnevor's change In status The problem wIth thIS
argument IS that It lIfts these words out of context, Ignonng the rest of the settlement and
the events precedIng ItS negotiatIOn. The settlement states "The gnevor wIll work In the
posItIOn of Semor LICenSIng Clerk (OAGI0) on a Regular Part Time basIs (18
hours/week) " The posItIOn of semor clerk and hours of work are mentIOned but not
5
status per se or benefits NeIther status nor benefits were dIscussed when the settlement
was negotIated and neIther were mentIOned In the gnevance or the letter precedIng It.
When the settlement was negotIated, the gnevor was gIven no reason to thInk It would
depnve her of the full-tIme benefits that she had enJoyed for the past four years whIle
workIng eIghteen hours weekly
In my VIew both partIes have over-reached In theIr InterpretatIOn of the
memorandum of settlement. It calls for no more than returmng Ms McNally to her
former dutIes as requested In her gnevance The settlement dId not In any way affect her
status or her resultIng entItlement to benefits The employer dId not undertake to preserve
her status as a full-tIme employee and the gnevor dId not consent to havIng her status
changed to that of a part-tIme employee
III
Counsel for the umon contends the employer IS contractually oblIged to contInue
provIdIng health and welfare benefits to Ms McNally because she has been granted a
Future EconomIc Loss (FEL) award by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. In
thIS regard, counsel relIes upon artIcle 41 4 of the collectIve agreement
Where an employee receIves an award under the Workplace Safety and Insurance
Act and the award applIes for longer than the penod set out In ArtIcle 41 2 (i e
three (3) months), the Employer wIll contInue SubsIdIes for BaSIC LIfe, Long
Term Income ProtectIOn, Supplementary Health and HospItal and Dental Plans
for the penod dunng WhICh the employee IS reCeIVIng the award.
Employer counsel argues the FEL payments beIng receIved by the gnevor are not
paid pursuant to an "award" wIthIn the meamng of artIcle 41 4 AccordIng to thIS
argument, the word "award" In thIS sectIOn refers to Loss of EarnIngs (LOE) benefits but
not FEL benefits I see no ment In thIS argument. FEL benefits are awarded as
compensatIOn for a permanent loss of earnIng capacIty resultIng from a workplace InJury
LOE benefits are paid as compensatIOn for eIther a temporary or permanent loss of
earmng capacIty floWIng from an InJury suffered at work. As these types of benefits are
two dIfferent ways of compensatIng for a permanent loss, there IS no reason to thInk
artIcle 41 4 was negotIated wIth the IntentIOn of treatIng an employee In receIpt of a FEL
award dIfferently than one In receIpt of an LOE award.
6
In comIng to thIS conclUSIOn, I have not overlooked the arguments advanced by
employer counsel about the wordIng of the collectIve agreement. One argument relatIng
to artIcle 41 4 Itself IS based upon the possIbIlIty of a FEL award beIng commuted to a
lump sum payment. ThIS argument does not dIStIngUISh a FEL award from an LOE award
because the latter may also be commuted In certaIn CIrcumstances (As to the
commutatIOn of an LOE award, see WSIB OperatIOnal Manual, Document Number 18-
03-05 ) Counsel also suggested the word "award" appeanng In other paragraphs of
artIcle 41 could not sensIbly be construed to mean a FEL award. ThIS argument does not
assIst the employer because all of these references to an award make perfect sense If read
to mean any type ofWSIB award for loss of earnIng capacIty ThIS IS the meamng I
attnbute to "award" In artIcle 41 4
The foregoIng analysIs leads me to conclude the gnevor IS entItled to the
protectIOn afforded by artIcle 41 4 HavIng come to thIS concluSIOn, I need not address
the umon's alternatIve argument about artIcle 42 3 because umon counsel concedes the
latter artIcle does not apply to an employee entItled to the benefit of the former
IV
As artIcle 41 4 does not preclude the employer from reducIng some of the gnevor's
benefits below the level prevIOusly enJoyed by her-I e penSIOn, sIck leave statutory
holIdays and vacatIOn-I turn to consIder whether such a reductIOn IS prohIbIted by
artIcle 3 of the collectIve agreement, or by the Human Rights Code as dISCnmInatIOn
based upon dIsabIlIty
I begIn my analysIs by notIng the gnevor' s complaInt IS about benefits formIng
part of the compensatIOn package She does not complaIn about beIng demed access to
employment In general or to a partIcular Job In other words, thIS case IS about
compensatIOn not partIcIpatIOn In the world of work. In Ontario Public Service
Employees Union andMinistlY of Transportation GSB FIle No 0725/95 I revIewed the
Ontano Court of Appeal's treatment of compensatIOn for dIsabled employees In Ontario
Nurses Association v Orillia Soldiers Memorial Hospital (1999) 169 D.L.R. (4th) 489
The employer In that case paid the full premIUm for health and welfare benefits
provIded to actIve employees For the first thIrty months that dIsabled nurses were
absent from work and In receIpt oflong term dIsabIlIty benefits, the hospItal
7
contInued to pay the full cost of provIdIng such benefits, thereafter the employer
made no contnbutIOn to health and welfare premIUms The Ontano Nurses'
AssocIatIOn (ONA) argued thIS dIfferentIal treatment contravened the Code
HoldIng there was no dIrect dISCnmInatIOn, Mr JustIce Rosenberg wrote
on behalf of the Court
DIsabled nurses do not receIve compensatIOn because they are not
provIdIng servIces to theIr employer It IS not prohIbIted dISCnmInatIOn to
dIStIngUISh for purposes of compensatIOn between employees who are
provIdIng servIces and those who are not.
In the case presently before the court, the purpose of the employer
contnbutIOns to benefit plans IS to provIde an addItIOnal form of
compensatIOn In exchange for work. HavIng chosen to provIde thIS form
of compensatIOn, the employer could not dISCnmInate on a prohIbIted
basIs However the employer could distinguish based on the reason for
providing the compensation lJ, ork. On its face discrimination lJ, ould exist
if the employer provided different levels of compensation for lJ,ork because
of handicap LikelJ, ise it lJ, ould constitute discrimination if the employer
provided different levels of compensation for not lJ, orking because of
handicap But, in this context it makes no sense to compare lJ,orking
employees lJ,ith those not lJ,orking
I also do not find It helpful to attempt to Isolate dIfferent elements
of the compensatIOn package such as employer contnbutIOns to premIUms,
vacatIOn pay and wages and ascnbe dIfferent purposes to each so as to
create a dISCnmInatIOn argument. They are all part of the compensatIOn
package negotIated by the partIes In exchange for work by the employees
When the employee IS not workIng, dIfferent consIderatIOns and dIfferent
forms of payment may apply For Instance, employees may receIve
workers' compensatIOn or long-term dIsabIlIty payments
LeavIng aSIde the dIfference between employees on workers'
compensatIOn and those on long-term dIsabIlIty WhICh IS not properly
before thIS court, the benefits provIded to handIcapped employees not
provIdIng work are more generous than to other employees not provIdIng
work. Therefore, there IS no dISCnmInatIOn on a prohIbIted basIs wIthIn
the meamng ofs 5(1) of the Code (pages 502 to 504)
TurnIng to IndIrect or constructIve dISCnmInatIOn, governed by sectIOn
11(1) of the Code Mr JustIce Rosenberg wrote
In my VIew It IS possIble to find that a neutral rule In thIS case has a
dISCnmInatory effect wIthIn the meamng of s 11(1) To repeat, the neutral
rule may be stated as follows the employer contnbutes toward premIUm
coverage of partIcIpatIng elIgIble nurses In the actIve employ of the
hospItal ThIS rule has the effect of requlflng the group of employees
IdentIfied by the prohIbIted ground of dISCnmInatIOn to assume the burden
of paYIng the entIre contnbutIOns for these benefits If they wIsh to
8
maIntaIn coverage Admittedly these employees are treated no differently
than other employees on unpaid leave of absence the difference is that
these employees are adversely effected by the rule because of their
disability The issue then is yt,hether the employers are entitled to the
BFOQ [i. e bona fide occupational requirement} justification in s.
11 (J)(b) [actually s. 11 (J)(a)) In my vieyt, they are I reach thIS
concluSIOn not because of the dIstInctIOn drawn In Versa Services between
compensatIOn and partIcIpatIOn, but rather by havIng regard to the nature
of the accommodatIOn reqUIred for thIS kInd of constructIve
dISCnmInatIOn.
An example may assIst In understandIng the problem. Assume that
an employer changes from paYIng ItS employees wages based on hours
worked to paYIng on the basIs of the number of pIeces produced. Assume
further that the dIsabled employees are sImply unable to produce as many
pIeces as able-bodIed employees and as a result theIr wages are reduced.
Arguably thIS constItutes constructIve dISCnmInatIOn. The facIally neutral
standard of paYIng by the number of pIeces produced results In a
restnctIOn on the abIlIty of the dIsabled employees to earn the same wages
as able-bodIed employees In accordance wIth s 1I(l)(a) the employer
could JustIfy the dIfferent result by shoWIng that thIS standard was
reasonable and bonafide In the CIrcumstances However In accordance
wIth s 11(2), the board of InqUIry or a court IS only entItled to find that the
standard IS reasonable and bona fide If It IS satIsfied the needs of the group
cannot be accommodated wIthout undue hardshIp consldenng the "cost,
outsIde sources of fundIng, If any and health and safety reqUIrements, If
any" Nevertheless, I do not read s 11(2) as ImpOSIng upon the employer
the burden of sImply tOppIng up the wages of the dIsabled employees
That, In my VIew IS not the type of accommodatIOn contemplated by s
11(2) and IS In fact Immlcal to the pnnclples underlYIng the Code
SImply tOppIng up the wages of the dIsabled employees and paYIng
them as If they are not dIsabled IS nothIng more than reverse stereotypIng
Rather It would seem to me that the employer In thIS hypothetIcal must
attempt to accommodate the group For example, the employer may
provIde devIces and Instruments that would allow the dIsabled employees
to perform at the same level as the able bodIed employees The duty IS on
the employer to take all steps short of undue hardshIp to accommodate the
need of the person dlscnmInated agaInst so that they can compete equally
wIth the other employees It IS by attemptIng to accommodate theIr actual
charactenstlcs so as to bnng them wIthIn the workplace envIronment that
the employer complIes wIth the Code
It may be that thIS goal cannot be fully accomplIshed and that short
of undue hardshIp the employer for example, can provIde techmcal aids
that wIll only partly bnng the dIsabled employees to the same level as the
able-bodIed employees However In my VIew that IS all the Code reqUIres
the employer to do The employer IS not reqUIred to abandon the standard
(assumIng It to be a BFOQ) and pay the dIsabled employees accordIng to
9
some dIfferent standard. ObvIOusly It may do so voluntanly but thIS IS
not what the Code reqUIres
The appellant In thIS case does not seek any reasonable
accommodatIOn or modIficatIOn of the rule for the actual charactenstlcs of
ItS dIsabled members
AssumIng the rule respectIng employer contnbutIOns to benefit
plans constItutes constructIve dISCnmInatIOn, I am satIsfied that the
JustIficatIOn In s ll(I)(b) [actually s ll(1)(a)] applIes Requiringrwrk in
exchange for compensation is a reasonable and bona fide requirement
(page 512 and 515 emphasIs added)
Counsel for the umon relIes upon the folloWIng passage from the Supreme Court
of Canada's decIsIOn In British Columbia Government and Service Employees Union V
Public Service Employee Relations Commission (1999) 176 D.L.R. (4th) 1
HavIng consIdered the vanous alternatIves, I propose the folloWIng three-step test
for determInIng whether aprimafacie dISCnmInatory standard IS a BFOR [bona
fide occupatIOnal reqUIrement] An employer may JustIfy the Impugned standard
by establIshIng on the balance of probabIlItIes
(1) that the employer adopted the standard for a purpose ratIOnally connected to the
performance of the Job
(2) that the employer adopted the partIcular standard In an honest and good faith
belIef that It was necessary to the fulfilment of that legItImate work-related
purpose and
(3) that the standard IS reasonably necessary to the accomplIshment of that legItImate
work-related purpose To show that the standard IS reasonably necessary It must
be demonstrated that It IS Impossible to accommodate IndIVIdual employees
shanng the charactenstlcs of the claimant wIthout ImpOSIng undue hardshIp upon
the employer (pages 24 and 25)
In that case, the gnevor was dIsmIssed from her employment because she faIled a runmng
test, and she contended her dIsmIssal was dISCnmInatIOn on the grounds of sex, because
the percentage of men paSSIng the test was larger than the percentage of women. As the
case was about access to employment not about wages or benefits, the Court said nothIng
specIfically about how It'S three-fold test applIes to compensatIOn.
In my VIew the Supreme Court's decIsIOn In British Columbia Government and
Service Employees Union does not put In doubt the basIc pOInt made In Orillia Soldiers
Memorial Hospital-there IS nothIng dISCnmInatory about reqUInng work In exchange
for compensatIOn. FolloWIng the Court of Appeal's lead, I conclude requInng full-tIme
10
work In exchange for some of the benefits normally offered only to full-tIme employees
IS "a reasonable and bonafide reqUIrement." I note artIcle 41 4 entItles the gnevor to
other benefits not avaIlable to employees workIng part-tIme for reasons other than
dIsabIlIty To thIS extent, as a dIsabled employee, she IS treated more favourably than
others AccordIngly the facts at hand do not constItute unlawful dISCnmInatIOn on the
ground of dIsabIlIty
I remaIn seIzed to address any Issues ansIng In the ImplementatIOn of thIS award.
Dated at Toronto thIS 16th day of October 2003
&
,e/~~..~ ~~__.~
&ch~dBrown
Vice-Chair