HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-3316.Serratore.18-05-10 DecisionCrown Employees Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2015-3316
UNION# 2016-0586-0003
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Serratore) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community and Social Services) Employer
BEFORE
Barry Stephens
Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION
Tim Hannigan
Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP
Counsel
FOR THE EMPLOYER Peter Dailleboust
Treasury Board Secretariat
Legal Services Branch
Senior Counsel
HEARING April 10, 2018
-2-
DECISION
[1] This grievance was heard under the provisions of Article 22.16 of the collective
agreement.
[2] The issue in this case is whether the grievor should have been converted to full
time sooner under Article 31A15.
[3] The union relies on an email from the grievor’s supervisor in December 2015 that
the grievor would be converted to full time in February 2016. The employer takes the
position that the grievor failed to reach the 18-month threshold in February 2016 due to
absences that served to delay the accumulation of the required service time.
[4] The employer argued that the email relied upon by the grievor was not conclusive,
given that it was couched in conditional language and, regardless, such a
communication could not have the power to supercede the language of the collective
agreement.
[5] The parties are agreed that authorized leaves of absence are counted for the 18-
month qualifying period. The employer contends that “authorized” absences
contemplates only those absences under Article 31 that apply to fixed term employees,
as set out in the decision in McPhail 1873/97 (Briggs). The employer also relied on the
second paragraph of 31A.8.1, which stipulates that an absence covered by an
attendance credit is counted for the purposes of the article. The employer argued that
the logical implication of this language is that a sick absence that is not covered by an
-3-
attendance credit is not counted for the purposes of Article 31(a)16. There is no
question that the grievor’s record includes sick time that was not covered by attendance
credits, and as a result her service was broken.
Decision
[6] I agree with the employer that the December 2015 email was written in conditional
language and, regardless, did not have the status of an official communication between
the parties that could be taken to amend or alter the language found in the collective
agreement. In my view, the employer’s analysis of the grievor’s circumstances is
correct, and she failed to complete the required service under Article 31(a)16 due to her
service being interrupted by absences that were not covered by attendance credits.
[7] Given the above, it is my conclusion that the grievance should be dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 10th day of May, 2018.
“Barry Stephens”
________________________
Barry Stephens, Arbitrator