The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2001-0226.Hollstedt.03-05-30 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# 0226/01 UNION# 2000-0727-0001 [01B129] IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano Pubhc ServIce Employees Umon (Hollstedt) Grievor - and - The Crown III RIght of Ontano (Mimstry of Natural Resources) Employer BEFORE Barry FIsher Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION Will Presley Gnevance Officer Ontano Pubhc ServIce Employees Umon FOR THE EMPLOYER LIsa Compagnone Counsel Management Board Secretanat HEARING May 27 2003 2 DeCISIon ThIS case mvolves determmIllg the Issue as to whether teachmg forest fire fightmg dutIes to Mimstry employees constItutes "related dutIes" under ArtIcle TEC8 7.2 of the prevIOus CollectIve Agreement. The relevant facts are not m dIspute and can be hsted as follows 1 The Gnevor IS employed as a FIre Trammg SpecIahst, classIfied as a RTS3 2 Dunng the relevant tIme, beIllg dunng the 2000 fire season, he taught a number of pre- scheduled courses to Mimstry employees, m partIcular the S300 ImtIal Attack Fire Boss / Sector Boss course The content of thIS course IS exclusIvely related to fightmg forest fires 3 The Gnevor IS a Schedule 6 employee and as such IS not entItled to overtIme, except as provIded m ArtIcle TEC8 7.2 4 On the days m questIOn, had the Gnevor been otherwIse entItled to overtIme, he would have earned overtIme based on the hours worked. In fact the employees that he taught were entItled to overtIme as they were not Schedule 6 employees ArtIcle TEC8 7 2 reads as follows Nof1+ ithstanding Article TEC8 7 1 and Article TEC 13 7 (Holiday Payment) employees lJ, ho are in classifications assigned to Schedule 6 and who are assigned to forest fighting or related duties, shall be paid one and one-half (1 12) times the employee s basic hourly rate to be calculated on the basis of thirty-six and one-quarter ( 36 14) hours per lJ, eek for all such lJ,ork after eight (8) in a 24-hour period. The Issue thus becomes whether of not teachmg fire fightmg m a pre-scheduled course IS a related duty to fightmg forest fires The partIes were unable to come across any prevIOUS cases on thIS partIcular pOIllt, however two GSB cases were cIted. In Segum (2185/87) Vice Chair Wilson outhned the hIStOry of thIS sectIOn. It came mto the CollectIve Agreement by means of an mterest award of Howard D Brown dated July 28 1982 ArbItrator Brown said at pages 16-17 of hIS award We are persuaded that the Union s submission that Schedule 6 employees assigned to fire fighting duties, should be compensatedfor such lJ,ork, in like manner to other employees involved in the same activity In Umon Gnevance (2156/87) Vice Chair DIssanayake held that thIS provIsIOn apphed equally to the suppressIOn of prescnbed burns after IgmtIOn as well as wIldburns At page 12 of hIS award he states 3 Overtime pay is due for hours yt,hen an employee is assigned to forest fire fighting or related duties. Surely an employee yt,ho is monitoring afire in readiness to go into action if required must come yt, ithin that term. The employee is on duty in a fire fighting or re lated role yt, hether or not he is in fact required to go into action. Despite counsels able submissions the Board does not accept the distinction betJ+een offensive and defensive fire suppression. We conclude that an employee pelforming duties after the ignition of a prescribed burn is assigned to forest fire fighting or related tasks yt, ithin the meaning of article 13 7 2 and is therefore entitled to overtime pay as per that article I find It useful to look at thIS Issue by askIllg oneself the followmg questIOn when determIllmg If a duty IS related to fire fightmg If it were not for the existence of a particular fire, would these duties have been performed by the employee? If the answer IS no then the duty IS related to fire fightmg. For mstance, If one's duty was to roll up hoses after the fire was extmgUIshed, then one can say that that IS a functIOn that would not have been performed but for the pnor eXIstence of a fire If the answer IS yes, then the duty IS not related to fire fightmg. Thus If the J ob duty was to check hoses for leaks every month, no matter whether they were used or not, one could say that thIS IS not related to fire fightmg because that duty would have been performed whether or not there was a fire In thIS case applymg the above test, It IS clear that thIS course was taught on the days m questIOn wIthout regard to the eXIstence of any partIcular fire as the dates were scheduled well ahead of tIme As such, It cannot be said that the teachmg of a pre-scheduled course on fire fightIllg to fire fighters IS a related duty to forest fire fightmg wIthIll the meamng of ArtIcle TEC8 7 2 I?~!ed at Toronto t~~s 30th of May 2003 Barry B Fisher Vice-Chair