Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-0072.Opseu.84-08-28IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Between: Before: Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievor - and - The Crownin Right of Ontario (Ministry of Correctional Services) For the Grievor: For the Employer: Date of Hearing: Employer E. B. Jolliffe, Q.C. Vice Chairman Paul Craven Member D. B. Middleton Member C. G. Paliare, Counsel Gowling & Henderson Barristers & Solicitors D. W. Brown, Q.C. Crown Law Office Civil Ministry of the Attorney General May 16, 1984 DECISION This matter came on for hearing in the form of a stated case. The parties had reached an understanding that the issues now arising between them may be determined by the answers to eight questions. On three of these the parties were agreed. The re- maining five questions must be decided by this Board. Specifically, they all relate to the overtime entitlement of "Seasonal or Part- time Employees." Required is the interpretation of certain provisions in Article 3 of the collective agreement dated December 17, 1982, between the Management Boar~d of Cabinet and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, stated to be effective from January 1, 1982, to December 31, 1983, subject to continuation as provided in Article 57. In section 1 of the Public Service Act it is made clear that a "civil servant" is a person appointed to the "classified service" by the Lieutenant Governor in Council or by the Civil Service Commission. On the other hand, persons appointed to the "unclassified service" by a Minister of the Crown are "pub- lic servants" but not "civil servants." It is the latter group, employees in the unclassified service, to which Article 3 of the collective agreement applies. The relevant clauses in Article 3 are as follows: -2- 3.1 The only terms of this Pgreemant that apply to employees who are not civil servants are those that are set out in this Article. OVERTIME 3.3 Cole and one-half (l-l%) times the.basic hourly rate shall be paid for authorized hours of work performed: (a) in excess of seven and one-quarter (7-&j or eight (8) hours pr day, as applicable, where employees work a regular thirty- six and one-quarter (36-&j or forty (40) hour work week, as applicable, or (b) in excess of the scheduled hours for employees who work on a regularly scheduled work day exceeding eight (8) hours, or (cl in excess of the employees' regularly scheduled work week, or (d) in excess of thirty-six and one-quarter (36-a) or forty (40) hours per week where employees do not have regularly scheduled work days. 3.11 Employment may be terminated by the Employer at any time with one (1) week's notice, or pays in lieu thereof. 3.12 Where an employee is appointed to the Classified Service and has worked more than twenty-four (24) hours per week on a continuous basis immediately prior to appointment to the Classified service, the time he actually worked within the previous year may be con- sidered to be part of his probationary period to a maximum of six (6) months. 3.14 'Ihe following Articles shall also apply to seasonal or part-time employees: Articles 1,9,11,12,15,16,17,21,22,23,25,27,32,36 and 57. The questions on which the parties agree were numbered 5, 7and 8. 'Question 5 "Is the employer entitled to average the hours of work of a part-time employee beyond a week? For example, if a part- time employee works 28 hours in one week and 20 hours in the following week, is the employer required to pay overtime for the week in which the hours exceeded 24?" The parties agree that the employer is not entitled to average the.hours of work beyond one week. In the example, the employer would be required to pay overtime for the week in which the hours exceeded 24. Question 7 "If the employer obtains a waiver from an individual to waive his rights to overtime pay under Article 3 is that waiver valid?" The parties agree that such a waiver would not be valid. -I Question 8 "If the employer converts an employee from part-time status to full-time status (either classified or unclassified), must the employer pay overtime pay to the employee for all hours worked beyond his regularly scheduled work week in excess of 24 -4 - hours, for the work week immediately following the t0conversion?18 In other words , ,where upon the termination of his part-time employ- ment the employee becomes a full-time employee, do the provisions of Articles 3.11 and 3.3 apply so that the employer must pay overtime for all hours worked beyond 24 hours during the one week of notice provided for in Article 3.11?" The parties agree that the employer must pay overtime pay to a "converted" employee for all hours worked beyond his regularly scheduled work week in excess of 24 hours, for the work week immediately following the "conversion," without prejudice to their respective positions on the question whether Article 3.11 applies in these circumstances, and in recognition of Ministry policy and practice. Consideration must now be given to the five questions on which the parties did not agree. Question 1 "Where the classified employees in an institution reg- ularly work 36.25 hours per week they are entitled to overtime pay when they work more than 7.25 hours in a day, regardless of the length of their work week. Are the Article 3 employees in -5- such an institution entitledtoovertime pay when they work more than 7.25 hours in a day, regardless of the length of their work week?" Question 2 "Where the classified employees in an institution. reg- ularly work 40 hours per week they are entitled to overtime pay when they work more than 8 hours in a day, regardless of the length of their work week. Are the Article 3 employees in such an insti- tution entitled to overtime pay when they work more than 8 hours in a day, regardless of the length of their work week?" Question 3 "Where the employees in an institution regularly work more than 8 hours per day (for example, 10 or 12 hours per day) are the Article 3 employees entitled to overtime pay when they work beyond their scheduled hours and those scheduled hours exceed 8 in the day?" Question4 "Are Article 3 employees whose contracts specify ‘Normal -6- hours of work not to exceed 24 per week' entitled to overtime pay when they work more than 24 hours in a week?" Question 6 "If a part-time employee is regularly scheduled to work less than 24 hours per week (e.g. two shifts of 8 hours) is the employer required to pay overtime if the employee works beyond his regularly scheduled shifts, even if the total number of hours worked in the week is 24 or less?" Before attempting to formulate answers to the questions quoted above, the following comments may be made. (A) Art~icle 3 has general application in all Ministries "to employees who are not civil servants" although the issues herein appear to have ar'isen in the Ministry oi Correctional Services. (B) The provisions of Article 3 apply to unclassified employees in a number of different categories. Some do full-time work, scheduled in the same way as their classified co-workers, for either the whole year or on a seasonal basis. Others have contracts for part-time work specifying that their hours are not to exceed 24 per week. Then there is a group known as "casuals", -7- who may be called in to work for a few hours or perhaps for sev- eral weeks. The title of Article 3 is somewhat misleading in that the unclassified service includes a number of full-time employees as well as seasonal and part-time employees. (C) Type of institution: It is common ground that different institutions adhere to different shift schedules. In some,classified employees regularly work 7.25 hours in the day; and in others they regularly work 8 hours in the day; and in others they regularly work 10 or 12 hours in the day. Questions 1,,2 and 3 pose essentially the same underlying question for each of these situations. This underlying question might be phrased as follows: "Is an Article 3 employee entitled to overtime pay when his work- ing day exceeds the number of hours in the shift regularly worked by classified employees in the institution where he works, regard- less of the length of his work week?" In our opinion the answers to questions 1, 2 and 3 must be consistent with one another and reflect this underlying identity. (D) Days and weeks: Questions 1, 2 and 3 ask whether, and under what circumstances, a part-time employee is entitled to overtime pay by virtue of the number of hours he works in a par- ticular day, irrespective of the total number of hours worked in -8- a week. Questions 4 and 6 ask whether, and under what circum- stances, a part-time employee is entitled to overtime pay by virtue of the number of hours he works in a particular week. (E) Scheduled hours: Question 3 makes reference to an Article 3 employee's "scheduled hours," and question 6 makes ref- erence to an Article 3 employee being "regularly scheduled to work" and as having "regularly scheduled shifts." Strictly speak- if-w, we received no evidence about the scheduling of Article 3 employees' hours. Counsel did indicate to us that in some insti- tutions shift schedules are posted on a regular basis and the names of Article 3 employees are included in the schedules. Of course, we are being asked to answer these questions in the hypo- thetical. We are not in a position to determine as a matter of fact whether or in what circumstances Article 3 employees may have "scheduled hours" or may be "regularly scheduled to work." Such a determination would have to be made on the facts of a particular case. Nonetheless the parties invite us by their question to interpret the provisions of Article 3.3 in the case of an hypothet- ical Article 3 employee who has "scheduled hours" or is "regularly scheduled," and we can do so without determing in advance what would constitute such a schedule in any particular case. -9 - (F) Normal hours of work: It was noted by the parties that the contracts between the Ministry and Article 3 employees usually provide that normal hours of work are not to exceed either 24 or 40 hours per week. There may be an understanding.- between a particular Article 3 employee and his institution that he is to work fewer hours per week than the normal maximum: for example, a part-time correctional officer may have the understand- .ing that he will normally work one or two shifts per week. No witnesses were called at the hearing of this case. The parties relied on the representations and arguments made by counsel, Mr. C.G. Paliare ,and Mr. D.W. Brown. These may be summarized as follows. On Questions 1, 2 and 3, the Union begins with the prop- osition that in any institution, a 'shift' isof a fixed length irrespective of 'the classification status of the employee who works the shift. The Union seeks to interpret the words, "where ~employ- ees work a regular thirty-six and one-quarter or forty hour work week; in Article 3.3 (a) and the words, "regularly scheduled work day exceeding eight hours" in 3.3 (b) as references to the regular length of shift in the institution. It would then follow that Article 3 employees who work more than 7 k hours in one day in an - 10 - institution which operates on a 7 &- hour shift schedule are'entitled to overtime pary, as would an Article 3 employee who works more than 8 hours in the day in an 8-hour institution, any Article 3 employee who works more than 10 hours in a lo-hour institution, and an Article 3 employee who works more than 12 hours a day in a 12- hour institution. In essence, the union contends that Articles 3.3 (a) and 3.3(b) specify that Article 3 employees whose hours of work in any given day exceed the normal working day in the insti- tution are to receive overtime pay. On Question 4, the union takes the position that an Article 3 employee whose contract specifies Normal hours of work not to exceed 24 hours per week cannot have a "regularly" scheduled work week" that exceeds the 24 hours for which he con- tracted. Accordingly, when such an employee works more than 24 hours in a week he works in excess of his regularly scheduled work week, and thereby gains entitlement to overtime pay under the provision in Article 3.3(c). Any other construc,tion would render the words "normal hours" in his contract and "regularly scheduled" in the Collective Agreement meaningless. On Question 6, the union argues that while an Article 3 employee's contract may specify "normal hours of work not to exceed - 11 - 24 per week," he may well be regularly scheduled to work fewer than 24 hours per week, asin (F) above; The Union concedes that such an employee's schedule might be changed. Nevertheless, it takes the position that so,long as an Article 3 employee is regularly scheduled to work a set number of hours in the week, and then works additional hours, he is entitled to over- time pay for those additional hours under 'the provision in Article 3.3(c). In respect of Article 3.3(d) the union argues that it has no application to any of the circumstances set out in the questions posed to the Board, but deals solely with employees such as snowplough operators whose work cannot be governed by a fixed schedule. The Employer noted that the definitonof'"employee" in the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act s. l(f)(vi) specif- ically excludes "a person not ordinarily required to work more than one-third of the normal period for persons performing similar work except where the person works on a regular and continuing basis." In general the employer takes the position that an Article 3 employee whose contract specifies Normal hours not to exceed 24 hours in the week has a work week 24 hours in length, and,is there- fore not entitled to overtime pay when he works fewer than 24 hours I - -- - 12 - in the week, regardless of the number of hours worked on any particular day thereof. In particular the employer argues that Article 3.3(a) applies only to employees who work 36% or 40-hour weeks, that is to full-time unclassified employees, and it does not apply to employees who work 24 or fewer hours per week. The employer further argues that Article 3.3(b) refers only to full-time un- classified employees working under a compressed work week arrange- ment, and it too does not apply to employees who work 24 or fewer hours per week. The employer argues that Article 3.-3(c) does entitle part-time employees to overtime payment once they have worked more than 24 hours in the week: in other words, the employer here agrees with the union that the answer to Question #4 must be "Yes," but only if the emp1oyees.i" question have a "regularly sch- eduled work week." Finally, the employer argues that Article 3.3(d) applies in the case of part-time employees who have no such regu- larly scheduled work weeks, thus entitling them to overtime pay once their hours of work exceed, not 24 but 36% or 40 hours. In sum, the employer would answer "no" to Questions 1.2 and 3, if indeed the employees in question have contracts specifying “Normal hours of work not to exceed 24 per week." The employer - 13 - would answer "Yes" to Question 4 in ~the case of employees who have regularly scheduled work weeks, and "No" in the case of unscheduled employees who work more than 24 but fewer than 36% or 40 hours in a week. The employer would answer "No" to Question 6. Overtime pay language like that before us is an attempt to balance the interest of the employer in effective scheduling with the interest of the employee in maintaining his hours of work within agreed-upon limits. and ensuring a degree of predictability over those hours of work so as to enable him to effectively schedule his out-of-work pursuits. In the matter before us, both these sets of interests are more than usually compelling. The employer's need for effective scheduling and full staffing are especially pronounced for obvious reasons.in the case of a correctional institution or a hospital. The employee's need to know how many hours he is to work and when may be extremely pronounced when his work is part- time, for he may have other job commitments to schedule around this one. From his standpoint, overtime'pay provisions supply both a cost penalty that encourages the employer to minimize the frequency of last-minute requests for additional hours, and a premium for the inconvenience such requests cause him. Additionally, provisions such as those before us recognize that the issue of overtime pres- ents itself with respect to both the work day and the work week. - 14 - Article 3.3 represents an attempt to balance these interests with respect to the unclassified service. It provides for overtime pay when unclassified.employees (whether full-time,. or part-time) tiork hours in excess of certain standards. Articles 3.3(a) and 3.3(b) address the issue of hours worked in excess of daily standards. The specific provisions of these two proviSions differ in:several ways and we must~give ." effect to those differences. In particular, Article 3.3(a) makes provision for hours worked in excess of 7% or 8 hours per day, as applicable. The words, "as applicable," amount to a recognition by the parties that different facilities in the public service operate on different schebules. It is significant in this connec- tion that the qualifying clause makes use of the word where. This is one of the features distinguishing this clause from Article 3:3(b), which talks of employees who work a day in excess of 8 - hours, Article 3.3(a)is to be interpreted as providing that an Article 3 employee &ho works more than 7% hours in a day in an institution where the normal work week is 36% hours, or more than 8 hours in a day in an institution where the normal work week is 40 hours, is to be compensated at the overtime rate with respect to the hours worked in excess of 7 & or 8 hours on that day. Ques- tions 1 and 2 must be answered, "Yes." - 15 - Article 3.3(b), ~unlike 3.3(a), makes specific reference to scheduled hours and a regularly scheduled work day. It has already been noted that whether an employee's hours are scheduled and whether he has regularly scheduled work days are questions of fact that cannot be answered except in the circumstances of a specific case. In the case of an Article 3 gmployee who does have scheduled hours and works on a regularly scheduled work day, the language of Article 3.3(b) is plain. To this extent, the answer' to Question 3 must be "Yes." Article 3.3(c) deals with the issue of overtime as it applies to the work week. The language of the collective agree- ment cannot be reconciled with the language of the individual contracts except by interpreting the condition in the latter: it clearly specifies an upper limit on the employee's regularly scheduled work week. Accordingly, the'answer to Question 4 must be a "Yes." With respect tb Question 6, and again noting that the question whether an employee is "regularly scheduled" to work some numberofhours less than the maximum set out in his contract is a matter of'fact to be determined in the specific case from,evid&ce - 16 - not before us now, and that schedules are subject to change with appropriate notice, the answer is equally plain. If in fact",the employee has a "regularly scheduled work week" of fewer than'24 hours, then the provision in Article 3.3(c) requires that he be paid the overtime rate for hours worked "in excess of (his) regularly scheduled work week." What has just been said in answering Question 6 does not apply tom those persons excluded from the public service by paragraph (f)(vi) in s. l(1) of the Crown Employees Bargaining Act. It is as follows: (fl "employee " means a Crown employee as defined in the public Service Act but does not include, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (vi) a person not ordinarily required to work more than one-third of the normal period for persons performing similar work except where the person works on a regular and continuing basis. Thus it is apparent that a person who is called into work one shift from time to time (without any requirement to re- port regularly for work) does not qualify as an employee and has no rights under Article 3.3(c). It is otherwise if he has a regularly scheduled work week of 8 or 10 or 12 hours because he "worked on a regular and continuing basis" --- exception recognized by (fl(vi1 above. - 17 - We do not have evidence before us to determine whether or not there are Article 3 employees in the Ministry of Correct- _~ ional Services to whom Article 3.3(d) might apply. But such a determination is unnecessary to answer the questions posed. In the result, this case is decided in the following tions framed by the parties: answers to the ques Question 1: Question 2: Question 3: Question 4: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Question 8: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes, as agreed Yes Yes, as agreed Yes, as agreed conditionally In conclusion, it is necessary to quote Article 27.8.1 of the collective agreement (headed "Union Grievance") which is as follows: 27.8.1' Where any difference between the Employer and the Union arises from the interpretation, application, ad- ministration or alleged contravention of the Agreement, the Union shall be entitled to file a grievance at the second stage of the grievance proced- ure provided it does so within thirty (30) days following the occurrence or origination of the circumstances giving rise to the grievance. - 18 - It must be pointed out that this was a "Union Grievance" under the above Article 27.8.1 of the collective agreement, initiated on November 8, 18S3, by way of a letter from the OPSEU President, Mr. Sean O'Flynn, to Dr. G. B. Podrebarac, Deputy Minister of Correctional Services. It was not an individual grievance, and thus its scope was not limited to any one individual or to any particular group of individuals among employees covered by Article 3 of the agreement. No individual grievance is before us. The original draft of questions posed to the Board was as mentioned in dissent, considerably amended in the course of the hearing. These changes were made for clarification with the concurrence of the parties, both of whom were represented by competent and experienced counsel. DATED at Toronto this 28th day of August, 1984. E.B. Jolliffe Vice Chairman Fji-zc/ti7s- --- . P. Craven Member "I dissent" (see attached) D.B. Middleton Member DISSEN? This dissent is prompted by a signed award dated July 4th by Vice-Chairman E.B. Jolliffe with a covering letter of same date which, if a Board Member dissents, invites reasoned comment. The ‘Decision’ in its opening sentence reads, “This matter came on for hearing in the form of a stated case”. Nowhere in the text of the Award is there mention of the original grievance. The grievance as worded is attached as Exhibit 1 to this dissent and is self -evident. If thii Board as is usual had confined its deliberations to the grievance problem around part-time (24 hour maximum) employees, and hours worked in excess of their normal hours in a week; then the present hypothetical exercise covering full time as well as part-time unclassified employees could have been avoided and only the relevant sub-section or sections of Article 3.3 interpreted within the strait context of the grievance wording. The so-called stated case was demonstrated at our hearing as not being a dependable instrument of the consent of the parties, and was altered, amended and rewritten in some cases on the sponsorship of Members of the Board in numerous regards requiring retyping by Union Counsel. It is therefore my view that the Board was misguided in bringing down an award on a hastily put together series of eight (8) questions, and not dealing with the grievance as worded. The Award constantly points out there was an almost complete lack of probative evidence to support the contentions of either Counsel. The possible exception was a copy of a work Contract of a Mr. Brian Miller which was attached to the letter of May 15th, 1982 - from Chris Paliare (Union Counsel) to the Ministry of the Attorney General - Attention: Mr. D.W. Brown. The attachment to this May 15th letter becomes Exhibit 2 to this dissent. I -2- 1 propose then in this dissent to deal primarily with the grievance itself and the case of Mr. Brian Miller intended to example the typical Contract entered into by a part-time employee. In the words of Union Counsel in his May 15th letter to the Ministry involved, I have attached the Contract of Mr. Miller which I would suggest is typical of these types of employees etc. This member considers it fortunate that, in his view, the narrower issue outlined by the grievance as originally submitted exposes the interpretative problem adequately and illustrates the reasons for my lack of acceptance of the present Award as signed. The main reason prompting this dissent, other than questions relating to the scope of the Board’s jurisdiction as already outlined, can be simply stated. If a part-time employee is granted overtime pay for hours worked in excess of twenty-four (24) in a week by the terms of this signed Award, then an anomalous condition exists which, in the opinion of this Member, is not dictated by the intention of the parties as expressed in their written instrument, Article 3.3. To illustrate-whereas a full-time employee classified or otherwise must work in excess of a thirty-six and one quarter (36%) or forty (40) hours in their regularly ,scheduled work week to obtain overtime pay; part-time employees, such as Mr. Miller, need only work in excea of twenty-four (24) hours to obtain commensurate payment. Article 3.3(c) of the current Contract between the parties is quoted as relevant. This anomalous pay situation is aggravated by the affirmative answer in this Board’s Award to question (6) where an employee works fewer than twenty-four hours. The example given in Question (6) was two shifts of eight hours. -3- To make matters worse it is plain from the language of the Award under (A) on page 6, that the interpretation placed on Article 3.3 has general application “in all Ministries to employees who are not civil servants”; and, it is common knowlege that this verbal umbrella covers considerable numbers of persons outside of Correctional Services with disparate working conditions and whose normal weekly hours of work are set out on an individual basis by Contract. It is clear from reading of Brown and Beatty 4:2100, Page 159 that anomalies should be avoided when arbitrators are faced with a choice between two linguistically permissible interpretations. The discussion on “work week” on the same page seemed particularly relevant, to this case. It remains for this Member to supply another linguistically permissible interpretation of Article 3.3 which would erase the potential anomalies flowing from the signed Award, and give> acceptable and uniform meaning to the language of that Article. The problem originally posed to this Board (with’ Mr. Miller instanced by Union Counsel as a typical example) concerned specifically overtime pay eligibility for hours worked in a week in excess of the normal maximum set out in part-time employees’ individual Contracts. The grievance wording specified “employees who are under Contract for twenty-four (24) hours work per week”. There is general agreement that the Section of Article 3.3 which covers this situation is 3.3(c) which reads as follows: (c) in excess of the employees’ regularly scheduled work week. Over the years this Member has had much to do with work schedules and his understanding matches that of Webster’s Dictionary which is that a schedule is a written or printed formal list. My experience dictates that such a formal list is duplicated - put on notice boards both Union or otherwise in advance of work performed, and cove,rs a -4- significant span of time. Some such schedules include overtime hours as well as regular hours but in any event are almost certain to be attuned to the full regular work week in effect in the Institution concerned, and apply to employees on a full-time basis. There is no evidence before this Board that such a formal listing as described contains the names of part-time employees, .and is made out on an individual basis taking into account the diversity in normal hours of work by Contract which characterized these Casual employees. Taking Mr. Miller as a typical example of the grievors, his Contract does not specify a regular number of hours of work per day or days per week. If this grievor or any other part-time employee works on a regular basis by hours per day or week to put in his normal weekly contractual maximum of houn worked; then, in the opinion of this Board Member, such regularity, whether prolonged or not, is coincidental and a matter of convenience not dictated by the individual’s Contract under ‘Other Terms and Conditions’. Under this heading does appear the caption ‘Services may be terminated on one (I) week’s notice by either party’. This provision is not conducive to the inclusion of this group in a formal posting of working hours covering a meaningful span of time on which the employee and the employer can rely. In summary Article 3.3(c) is interpreted by this Member to exclude part-time employees whose names and individual hours have no place in a regular scheduled work week posting and applies only to full-time employees who work the regular weekly hours of the Institution. The answer to Questions 4 and 6 should then be negative and I would have so interpreted the named Article 3.3. Although the grievance as originally submitted does not involve daily overtime my findings on Article 3.3(a) and (b) is similar to that of the employer as -5- outlined at the hearing and set out on the first paragraph of Page 12 of the Board’s signed Award. In short arid fw similar interpretative reasons that we have set out as applicable to 3.3 (c); Article 3.3(a), (b) applies only to full-time unclassified employees working under (a) either 36)1 or 40 hours per week or under (b) in a compressed work week situation. Part-time employees can obtain overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 36% or 40 hours and such a pay right for them is found under 3.3(d). Certainly this Member is of the opinion that the grievors in this case do not have regularly scheduled work days or indeed a regularly scheduled work week and it is significant that overtime eligibility under Article 3.3(d) does not flow from either premise or condition. There is little evidence to substantiate that Article 3.3(d) is concerned with snow plow operators and their ,ilk as was argued by the Union at our hearing, although this Member agrees that it applies to those whose work cannot be governed by a fixed schedule such as casual employees. In our opinion part-time employees are casuals by Contract as was Mr. Miller. If this Member has interpreted Article 3.3 correctly then the patent anomaly as outlined in this dissent and arising from the written Award of this Board is erased, and the overtime opportunity of part-time personnel at a weekly level is the same as full-time employees and no inequality of treatment involved. In the result, this Member would, for the sake of symmetry and not, by conviction that the stated case should comprise the Award, decide to the questions framed by the parties: Question 1. No $ues;i; ;. No ues . No Quest ion 4. No Quest ion 5. Yes, as agreed -6- Question 6. No Quest ion 7. Yes, as agreed. Question 8. Yes, as agreed conditionally. All of the above is respectfully submitted. iy: I&. 0+A5>6~ D.B. Middleton, Member Encl. (Exhibits I & 2) /Ibw 49 & . EXHIBIT 1 - DISSENT Noveder a, 1983 Dr- G.R. Podrebarac Deputy Minister Hinistry of Correctional Services 2nd?l.~~ZOOl Eglinton Ave. East Sc2rbcrc~gh, Chtz'rio IIlL 4Pl l?e: Article 3.3 - Overtime Pay in accol'dance vith Article 27.8.1 of the Collective'Agreemat betveen %n>gezwrt Board of Cablxet and the Ontario Public Service b?losees U&m.. Ue grieve t?x: the Xinistry of Correctional Services has violated Article 3.3 of the contract because they are not paying employees, vho are mder contract for twenty-four hours. vork per L-eek, overtize when they vork in excrss of this naximm. As setrlemot for this :rievznce, ue are requesting that you cease ad desist fro3 this practice and that you pay all overtime oving '. to thvc enployees. would you blease contact Lillian Stevens 'at telephone n.z+er 4&Z-7423 to arran,ye a suitable tioe md place to discuss this aatter. : Toxrs truly, ~~ _ I ii? ‘*- . I . . “.> . . . . “.‘i . Unif . .,.,. ‘..1-,#,L EXHIBIT 2 - DISS?XNl' 1 I Unclassified Se1 .t ..- ,_’ .: IJau CdNTRACT RENEWAL Group’ IQ . OMS . N$;yLm;h FlW BRIAN Middle Socid Inwancc Nwnbc, I -,,omc Address R+$ 1 Lu enburqst Ontario Work Location 414,2/5,7,9\5, Cornwall Jail Dale Of BirtlJ NO =Ycr lspccilyl 'Sept. 30/5b : Elklive Dal0 ExpirmV Date Classific~hn April.l/Sz . March 31/83 CorreCtional;Officer 1 ~~icSalary ante . &I.6l,'hour I . . ..* ‘. I ... L . . ‘. . .-ii. . .%.‘.. ’ . .: . :. :. .*.. I’ . . . -. ‘. . . . : : . .._. ? . . . ... .:. . . : ; ; . yr~’ I’.. Y-. ?; .‘. :...; -. * : ;“.. . . .*- I : _; - . .~ :‘: : : .y. ..~:- .: ? Ct..-’ :. .Y’ ;y.-*. : . .Kj