HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-0526.Szalonczay.86-07-18r
526181
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
- Under -
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between
Before:
For the Griever:
For the Employer:
Hearing:
Prior Decisions:
OPSEU (Leslie Szalonczay)
and
The Crown in Righr of Ontario
(Ministry of Transportation and
Communications)
lean J.R.S. Prichard
W. Walsh
A.G. Sta;letOn
R. Anand
Counsel
Cavalluzzo, Hayes & Lennon
Barristers & Solicitors
L.M. McIntosh
Counsel
Crown Law Office Civil
Ministry of the Attorney General
Witten submissions only
GSB 443180
GSB 526/81
Griever
Employer
Vice-Chairman
Member
Member
DECISION
In our Award in this matter dated August 4, 1982, we concluded that the
Griever was entitled to compensation for certain salary increases that had not
been granted to him. We retained jurisdiction to determine the amount of
compensation owing in the event rhat the parties were unable to reach agreement
Subsequently, the parties advised us that they had reached agreement on the
principal amount in dispute and the Griever received a payment of $1,155.24 on
September 9, 1982. The parties were unable to agree, however, on the question
of whether or not interest should be paid on this amount. We received written
submissions on this issue and have concluded as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Pursuant to its remedial authority, the Grievance
Settlement Board has jurisdiction to award interest
in circumstances where it is a necessary element
of achieving full compensation.(See Gingell 172184)
Earlier decisions of the Grievance Settlement
Board have made clear that the Board will exercise
this jurisdiction and award interest in appropriate
Cases. (See Gingell 172/84; Jones 537182;
Knudson 34&3/80)
The case before us is an appropriate one for in.teresc
to be awarded. Absent an award of interest, the
Griever will not be fully compensated.
In their written submissions, both parties agreed
that if interest were awarded, it should be calculated
in accordance with the formula set out by the OLRB
in @ Hallow11 House (1980) 1 Can. L.R.B.R. 499.
. . . . 2
- 2 -
5. In their written submissions, the parties agreed
that if interest were awarded, the relevant interest
rate was 22.75% and the relevant principal amount
‘was the gross salary owing ($1,155.24).
6. The principal amount was paid on September 9, 1982
(the 252nd day of 1982). This amount covered the
period from January 1, 1980 to December 31, 1981.
The mid-point of this period is January 1, 1981.
7. In their written submissions the parties suggested
different calculations based on this background.
The Union suggested:
$1,155.24 x (365 + 252) x 22.75% = $444.27
365
The Employer suggested:
S1,155.24 x 22.75% x 2 = $98.56
12
a. We have concluded that the Union’s ‘calculation is correct.
It calculates interest on the principal amount owed
from the mid-point in the period over which the liability
accrued to the date on which it was actually paid.
That is consistent with Hallowell (Supra) and Gingell
(Supra). The Employer’s calculation would under-
compensate the Griever because it calculates interest
only fromtheend of the period over which liability
accrued and only on one-half of the amount of the
liability. This would be an incorrect application
of Hallowell and Gingell.
As a result, the Griever was entitled to the payment of $444.27 in interest.
Since the Board has received with regret advice that the Griever has passed away,
this amount should be paid to his estate.
. . . . 3
The Vice-Chairman accepts full responsibility and apologizes to the parties
for the delay in the issuing of this Award since the receipt of the parties’
written submissions.
Dated this 18th day of J”lY t 1986
Dean J.R.S..Prichard, Vice-Chairman
W. Walsh, Member
&$j& J+i$&
A.G. Stap efon, Member