The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1989-2508.Galloway.89-02-07 Decision ( (' C' ONTARIO CROWN EMPlOYEES EMPlOYES DE LA COURONNE DE L'ONTARIO COMMISSION DE , REGLEMENT DES GRIEFS 1111 GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST. TORONTO, ONTARIO. M50 lZ8 - SUITE 2100 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, TORONTO, (ONTARIO) M50 lZ8 . BUREAU 2100 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: OPSEU (Steve Galloway) and The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) Before: Vice-Chairperson Member Member M.V. Watters J. D. t~cManus H. Roberts For the Grievor: C. Dassios Counsel Gowling & Henderson Barristers and Solicitors For the Employer: K.B. Cribbie Staff Relations Officer Human Resources Branch Ministry of Transportation Hearing: January 13~ 1989 L 90 TELEPHONE ITELtPHONE (416) 598-(}688 g7G33 2508/86 Grievor Employer ( C' C~ DEe I S ION This panel of the Board, in an award released March 17~ 1988, found that the employer's redesignation of the grievor's headquarters to Ajax~ Ontario, subsequent to his mOve to Grafton in late 1986, was inequitable in the context of article 38.S(b) of the collective agreement. Specifically, we concluded that the redesignation was not "equitable to both the employee and the ministry" as contemplated by the aforesaid article. The Board therefore allowed the grievance in part and remitted the matter back to the parties for further discussion and the ultimate selection of a headquarters that more equitably allocated the responsibility for travel costs. Jurisdiction was retained In the event that the parties failed to arrIve at a resolution of this issue. This same panel of the Board was reconvened on January 13, 1989, ae the parties were unable to agree on a new headquarters for the grievor. A limited amount of new evidence and argument was presented at the second hearing. Simply put, it was the position of the employer that the most equitable headquarters would be the O.P.P. Detachment at the intersection of Highways 12 and 401 In Whitby. This location is approximately three kilometers south of the grievor's former residence (and -1- _._~__~_~~~~~__'_m~__.~~_~_~.~_~_L__'_"'"--""<.~""""'--"""'---""""'"'----"'--<=""''''''~~~~L--.'t""'__.~-<:~"''''.'''.___~~''':I..-'''''-_....-..____~'''''''-~~;~"i-~~~~~~'"'';-~--~~.......-.- ( headquarters) in that town. Alternatively, the Inspection Centre at Thickson Road and Highway 401 in Oshawa was suggested as an appropriate eite. In response, the union submitted that a Port Hope headquarters would best ensure the equitable sharing of travel costs. After considering the respective submissions, we are unable to adjudge that any of the suggested sites would provide for an "equitable" headquarters. Those advanced by the employer, in our estimation, would require the grievor to assume an excessive share of travel costs for assignments close to or west of Whitby. Similarly, we think that the Port Hope location would ( result in the employer having to assume an undue share of such costs. It is our conclusion that a designated headquarters at Newcastle, Ontario, would better reflect the intention of article 38.5 of the collective agreement for the following reasons: ( i) A headquarters at that location would more evenly apportion the increase in travel costs occasioned by the grievor's move to Grafton and would more effectively reflect the greater distances the grievor may now have to travel to arrive at a work site. This latter aspect was insufficiently considered by the employer subsequent to the issuance of our first award. (i i) It recognizes that the grievor must assume a significant share of the increase in travel costs which could be generated by his voluntary decision to relocate. In this regard, we note that the distance between Grafton and Newcastle is approximately forty-six (46) kilometers. C~ -2- __ _______'.. __~_____ ~~..'_ '.~~___~"~.._ __.,.. , ~._,. _..,-~' --;-_---c~.._~-~'_.....~r:r........'="":"'to~~-,~~_~~:!<'_.....~'9(~"?Il"s:~~""];r;:~'_-----.--;-:v ~,~~_~_.~~~r ( (iii) Such a headquarters would not materially prejudice the interests of the employer when the grievor is assigned to work in the eastern part of the Central Region. In these instances, it treats the employee's residence as the headquarters for purposes of calculation of travel entitlementsi and (iv) The employer has some control over where employees are assigned to work and, indeed, has a practice of assigning close to the residence if that is possible. If work in the eastern section of the Central Region does "dry uptl as speculated, the employer may be entitled to resort to article 38.4(c) of the collective agreement for purposes of redesignation of the grievor's headquarters. While it would have been preferable for the parties to have decided this issue for themselves, the Board is satisfied that sufficient evidence has been adduced to allow us to finally determine the issue of equitability. (' The Board therefore designates Newcastle, Ontario) as the headquarters for the grievor. This designation is to be effective as of January 13, 1989. Compensation was not specifically claimed in the original grievance nor was it the subject of discussion on the first day of hearing. Additionally, we are disinclined to make a retroactive award in the circumstances of this case, in that a recalculation of expenses could lead to the grievor and/or other employees being indebted to the 'employer for an overpayment. Further, from the facts presented, it does not seem that the grievor has been significantly prejudiced to date by the employer's decision to ('" , -:..-~. -3- ~ """._~-~~'-'-"'''''''..~-~_ ....~~.--._~__ _ .,_____._.' ....~_.,....-......-- ,......,"____-.".~______1~._-.""77."'..~,.-""""'_..,.....".....__. ~....................__""~...'_:.'1..."'__........_." .-.;,.......,""-.~.......;:"I;.....,...".,...."'I."V";7"...":':Q"1...,...,._...,'""'1~~....,~~~~"'I'I.~---.,..-~.l"?......-.~.-;-.~.~-.~~ ~!~_.:;-..--.:-i"!'":"".;r<f;",. ~ ( redesignate his headquarters to Ajax, Ontario. We will again retain jurisdiction for purposes of implementation of this award. Dated at Windsor, Ontario~ this 7th day of February, 1989. i I .. M. V. Watters, Vice-Chairperson ~ J. cManus, Member H.~~~~ ( C~ -4 - ~--~c~~~~~ ;r~~'-.""'~"''''''-'c-''''-~",-;t.~~_.. _'~.,. __ .,..~--=c..........",.. ....-,.,....-#',........ w~.,."""""~-..=.;;...'7'"'........",...,..-~....-~ ::!-';O-......:lo"Tr.TC:-~-.....--=;-~;- ~ ~ -.,.-- ~T> c_:~"'~-.:-_." -"'-,n;-. ----"--." ~._--...~ - -....... -';".............~"P,~~:-:-...."'-'..,..<n.~~""""I-~._~7"'\-..,.~'~-~..-