Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-0136.Blake.82-07-30.IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: For the Griever: For the Employer: Hearing: Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1587 (Elton Blake). and The Crown in Right of Ontario (Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority) Griever Employer J.F.W. Weatheriil Chairman I. Thomson ,Member K. Preston [Member E.G. Pow-i, Counsel Barristers & Solicitor E.T. McDermott, Counsel Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt July 2, 1982 -2- In this grievance, dated February 5, 1982, the union grieves "as a matter of policy" certain alleged changes said to have been implemented by the employer with respect to free transportation for employees. It is alleged that such changes were in violation of art~icle 34 of the collective agreement. That article is as follows: Article 34 - Free Transportation 34.1 The Employer agrees to maintain its current practices relative to providing free transportation on GO Transit vehicles for the duration of this agreement. The evidence before us establishes that the "current practices" relative to free transportation were that employees were entitled to free transportation on the system at all times, subject to their showing an iden- tification card, and subject to preference for available transportation given to paying passengers. As well, employees were asked to comment on the level of,service provided, and required to report accidents or acts of vandalism. These matters were set out in a document entitled "Conditions for Issuance of GO Transit Pass", signed by employees to whom a pass was issued. Those conditions were as follows: ,. ’ : -3 - : . CONDITIONS FOR ISSUANCE OF GO TRANSIT PASS 1. The pass shall only be used by the person in whose name it is issued. 2. The pass may be used at all times during the term of employment. Employees will be asked to comment on the level of ser- vice provided and to suggest where im- provements could be made. 3. A written report must be forwarded to the Director of Operations within 48 hours whenever any occurrence, accident or act of vandalism is observed. 4. Lost or stolen passes must be reported immediately to the Chief Accountant. 5. Any abuse of the above mentioned condi- tions shall bear the penalty: i) for the first offence - suspension without pay for seven (7) days: ii) for the second offence - termination of employment. 6. The pass also serves as an employee iden- tification card. In January, 1982, the employer replaced- the transit pass with a small, wallet-sized card, bearing the photo- graph of the employee and known as a "photo identifica- tion system access card". Certain regulations were issued along with the new cards, including one to the effect that misuse of the cards or failure to comply with the regulations "can result in suspension or termination of employment". As well, it appears that the employerhad indicated it would require a payment for a renewal card. These new regulations were protested by the union and they were amended. The requirement of payment for a renewal card was dropped. The amended regulations, issued in March, 1982, were as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The card shall only be used for the purpose of providing identification and access to the GO Transit system, by the person whose name and picture 'appears on the card. The card must be worn in a visible location at all times while on duty in public areas of the system and at other GO Transit facilities away from the normal work location. Mislaid or forgotten card must be reported immediately to your supervisor who will arrange for a temporary card for the remain- der of the shift. Lost or stolen card must be reported to the supervisor and Fersonnel Department immedi- ately. The:Personnel Department will arrange to issue a new replacement Photo Identifi- cation System Access Card. An employee who witnesses an accident or act of vandalism while on duty is required to forward a, written report to the Administra- tion & Claims Officer, Head Office. An employee using the GO System while on duty is obliged to relinquish his/her seat to a paying customer. Misuse and/or failure to comply with condi- tions detailed above can result in disciplinary action. An employee who rides the GO System is asked to forward his/her observations to the Director, Commuter Operations & Equipment on the level of service provided, crew deportment, equip- ment cleanliness, accidents, act of vandalism and any other item which is detrimental to the image of GO Transit. I acknowledge that my card must be returned to my supervisor before the release of my final payroll cheque. -5- The revised regulations were still regarded by the union as changing the free-transportation practice. Item 2 appears to have been particularly in contention. In the course of the grievance procedure, the union President wrote the Managing Director to say that if item 2 were withdrawn, the matter would be "finalized". Such a proposal does not limit the scope of the grievance already filed, and the union is entitled to protest other aspects of the regulations in these proceedings. In fact, only items 1, 2 and 7 are in contention. _ As to item 7, that appears to replace item 5 of the previous conditions; Neither can be said to be a "practice" so much as a policy enunciated by the employer for abuse of the free-transportation practice. Of course, any such abuses might, in a proper case, be grounds for discipline. The new regulations appear to be-somewhat less rigorous than the previous ones, but in any event, they do not have the status of collective agreement provisions and are not binding on the union or the employees, nor on this board. Disciplinary actions, if grieved, would still have to meet the just-cause test. Item 7 does not have any substantial effect on the matter of free transportation itself. Items 1 and 2, which may be considered together, -6- : could be read, perhaps, as limiting the right of free transportation, and of imposing a requirement of wearing a photographic identity card at all times. Such a limitation and, in some circumstances, such a require- ment, might indeed constitute breaches of article 34 of the collective agreement. The evidence satisfies us that such a limitation was not intended and has not been put into effect. Further, the requirement of wearing the photographic identity card is restricted to public areas, or to situa- tions in which identification of employees is appropriate. hployeeswho are not on duty need not wear the cards, and employees who are on duty need wear them only in certain cirucmstances. That employees who are on duty may be required to wear identification cards is not a matter relating, in any but the most incidental way, to the matter of free transportation. What appears to have happened is that the transit pass formerly issued hasbeen replaced by the access card which serves not only as a pass, but as an identi- * fication card for purposes not directly related to transportation. As long as it is recognized that the other functions which the new card may fill do not in fact impinge on those more limited functions served by the transit pass, then there will have been no‘ i - 7 - : violation of the collective agreement. We deal, in the instant case, only with the question of alleged violation of article 34. While we find that there has been no violation of that article by the mere fact of the issuing of the access passes and the reyu- lations relating to their use, we do not consider that this arbitration has been "won" or "lost" by either party. The evidence, in our view, has clarified the purposes of the new card, and the effect of the reyula-. tions. There can, under the collective agreement, be no valid limitation of the practices relative to free transportation, and this board so declares. The propriety of the non-transportation uses of the card is not before us. DATED AT TORONTO, this -?J:.:: ~'I !); r.: day of 'i,&&'i , 1982. 4 3.F.V. Weatherill Chairman VI. Thomson Xember K. Preston Member