HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-2375.Ranger.11-02-07 Decision
Commission de
Crown Employees
Grievance
UqJOHPHQWGHVJULHIV
Settlement Board
GHVHPSOR\pVGHOD
Couronne
Suite 600 Bureau 600
180 Dundas St. West 180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 7pO
Fax (416) 326-1396 7pOpF
GSB#2002-2375, 2004-1217, 2005-2232, 2005-2768, 2006-0421, 2006-0632
UNION#2002-0411-0038, 2004-0411-0071, 2005-0411-0080, 2005-0411-0081,
2006-0446-0001, 2006-0446-0002
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Union
(Ranger)
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFOREVice-Chair
Deborah J.D. Leighton
FOR THE UNION
Don Eady
Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Sean Kearney
Ministry of Government Services
Legal Services Branch
Senior Counsel
Paul Meier
Ministry of Government Services
Legal Services Branch
Counsel
HEARINGNovember 30, 2010 and December 15, 2010.
- 2 -
Decision
[1]Since the release of the decision in this matter in January 2010, which
upheld the grievances, the parties have been negotiating the remedy. They have
agreed on the amount for lost wages for the grievor between 2002 and 2010,
including shift premium and overtime. The parties also agreed on the LTIP paid to
grievor and the interest payable if simple or compound.
[2] However there are two outstanding issues with regard to the lost wages, for
which there was no agreement. First, the union takes the position that interest on
the lost wages should be compound. The HPSOR\HU¶VYLHZLVWKDW$UWLFOHRI
the collective agreement provides simple interest. Second, the union submits that
the LTIP paid to the grievor at times between 2002 and 2010 should not be
deducted from the amount the lost wages aQGLQWHUHVW7KHHPSOR\HU¶VSRVLWLRQLV
that it must be deducted.
[3] Having carefully considered the submissions of the parties on these
questions, I must conclude that the employer prevails on both issues. On the first
issue the collective agreement provides how interest shall be calculated on awards
of lost wages. It is not an optional provision: the language is mandatory. On the
VHFRQGLVVXH,DPSHUVXDGHGWKDWWKHXQLRQ¶VSRVLWLRQLVFRQWUDU\WRWKH
fundamental principle of awards in these cases, which is to remedy actual loss and
make the grievor whole.
[4] This matter is scheduled to proceed with outstanding issues on damages in
February and March and I shall provide full reasons for the decision here in the
final award on the remedy for the grievor. I should note for the record that the
union has reserved the right to argue that the grievor should have been promoted to
- 3 -
an OM 16 on or about 2001. Also for the record, the grievor has agreed to make
best efforts to have past wages allocated to their appropriate tax year. And the
employer has agreed that if Revenue Canada or Quebec tax authorities do not
permit the allocation and assess additional tax, it will reimburse the grievor.
[5] Thus, I hereby order the employer to pay the grievor $244,242, for lost
wages. This is the amount minus the LTIP payments and includes simple interest.
th
Dated at Toronto this 7 day of February 2011.
Deborah J.D. Leighton, Vice-Chair