Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-0641.Robertson.88-01-28Between: Before: For the Griever: IN THE NATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under TlWCROWN FXPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMNT BOARD For the Employer: Hearing: OPSEU (Frederick Robertson) Griever and The Crown In Right of Ontario Employer (Ministry of Correctional Services) -I. Springate Vice-Chairman .I. Anderson Member F. Collict Member Ian Roland Counse 1 Gowiing and Henderson Barristers and Solicitors Doug Milic 'Employee Relations Officer Ministry of Community,& Social Services May 15, 1981 . -l- DECISION Ibe griever is a mmectiti officer arplcyed at the Lindsay Jail. At the tim of the events giving riseto these prcceedirge he was workiq a carpressed tirk week of 12 kurs per day. He was scheduled to work a 12 hour day pn May Zg, 1985, which was Victoria -Y* He was, hwever, unable to work that day because of illness. The parties disagree as to the amount of pay he was entitled to receive for the day and/or his entitlement to paid axpensating leave. The reletint pro&ions in the collective agreerent provide as follms: 19.1 where ao eaplqee works on a holiday included mder Article 47 (Holidays), he shall be paid at the rate of two (2) tiues his basic hcurly rate fox all hems worked with a minimm credit of seven and one-quarter (7 l/4), eight (81, or the numbx of regularly scheduled hcurs, as applicable. 19.2 In addition to the paynent provided by section 19.1an e@oyee Shall receive either semi and , ore-quarter (7 l/4) or eight (81 ha\rs as amlicable, provided the enployea cpta for compensating leave prior to the holiday. 47.1 An employee shall be entitled to the following holidays each year: Ned Year Is Day Easter Monday Dninion Day Labcur Day Rfmmbrance Day Eoxiq Day Good Friday Victoria bay Civic Holiday Thanksgiving Day chrisbnss my -2- 47.1(&Id) Anyq=ialholidayasProclahdbythe GovermrW or IL- Govermr. 51.1 Anmplqreewhoismabletoattendtohis~ties lAletosidrneeeOrinjuryfeentitledtol~W- of-flkee!xewiulpayasfollWs: (i) wi&qd.a& qlyfc& the first six (6) (ii) with seventy-iive per&t (75%) of regular salEuyforanadditimalme~edand twenty-four (124) working days of aberice ineac9-lcalendaryaer.~ 53.2, -Ai& states: 53.2 Whereanenplcyeeisateentby.reascnofan I injulyoran-diseasefor~d-Lan wardisnadeurderThel+odusm'sCcnpensaticll Act,Nssalaxyshallantimetob3paidfara perioanotexceedin9Wee(3) cmsecutie nuiths for a total of sixty-fivz (65) vmrkirq days where su& atences are intendttent, follauing the &teofthefirstatSencetecause0ftheinjury orhdusWaldisease,~anyabsenceinrespect 0ftheinjuyorindustnaldiseaseshalLlwtbs darged against his credits. Had the griever been able tomrk May 20th, Article 19.1xuld haie entitledhbto~ paid at two tines his l&c i-mrly rate for all 12 hxrs worked. In additicm, he wculd have keen &titled to receive another 8 hers pay, or 8 haus onpensating leave, under ,ticle 19.2. Beauss the griewr did rmt w& an ~the day in questicn, the enpl.qfer, in accordance with a practice datinqi tn&.to at least the.early 1970's, paia hiq m the basis that- he had taken the May 20th hAi&y, namely 8 hcurs holiday pay. The unicn and '~. enplqer agrea thatthhpayrrentwas nade in accordance with the (... -. 3- ’ reqLllrerrents of Article 19.02. &c+z*thathehadnotbsenill thegriewrweuldhaveactmllybmrkeda12~day, the e@.oyer‘ also pid him 4 lmrs side py, premmblyprsuant to Article 51.1. 'lb fa2rtmrswere deducted Bunhis acamulatad sidcleave aedits. As discussed b&w, EcerCjurisprudexe regards Article 19.2~as 'beinga@iceblelmthtoenplqeeswh3wrkarx3thosewho.domtmzk a holidsy. Fa the pqcea of these praeedings, both patties accept this interpretatim. AxtiCle 19.2 provides that an enplcpe is to receiw 8 bars pay, or, in the a.lternati~; ccnpensating leave prwidedhe has cpted for the leave prior to the holiday. At t&eheariqUnim aimse~a&rxnledgedth3tthegritir~hadrwtqted foranpensatirqleavepriorto theVictmia~hDli&y. Given this ansidemtien, as well as the fact the 9riewr was paia ei#ttbxrs paygursmnttoArticle19.2, itisclaarthathecsnrwtnwhaveany entitlementto8hours aJpansating lsave. Tha mim's claim that 'thegriewrshsuldha~~88hcurscredited~hisstatutoryholi~ bank nust, ~arxordkgly, fail. There riad.ns, hcwever, a question as to the anumt of sick pay the 9rieux was entitled to receive in edditim tohis ei*thaxc4holiday pay. . The uniclr- that the cJrL?uxwas entitled to receive12 ham sib prnl under Article 51.1 and in this regard reLies cn the awardoftAisBcardin amrbmmu 544/al @artal). The-u cesecarernedaneuployeeutr,~~ledto~~~lidaysbJt ~ldnotdo'sobecausehe~offworkcn~ers'carpensation. Tk~ccncludedthattheenplayee~entitledto8~pay,co corpensating ;Fne off, for each of the days~plrwwt to Article 19.2, aswellasNsregularsalaryforbJthdayspvsuant to Article 53.2. Article 53.2 +des for,& antinuatia~ of amenplcyee's salary aen he is al wrkers' azmperwticn: unicm axnsel antends that Article 51.1, aweringenplcy~whoarezway'frcmwrk'dueto .~ ill&s, is similar toArticle 53.2, and accor&ngly the reasonin in theclnrhmn~rrwardshculdbefollcwedintheinstant~. Thearployerdisagrses,notingthatEcardzWardspriortocharbaureau k&d that an enplqee unsble to wrk a holiday due to 'illness was entitled cdy to receipt ofholidaypay. TkBcard'saFpllcablecaseiwwasrevi~~atscrrelengthin M&amid 366/83,where thBcardpanelwa8 chairedbj the samVice- Chainmnasintheinstantiase. what follms is LS9ely repeat of . that review. The first relevant Ward mard was ar 145/77 (s.m). In tit case, an employee scheduled tow* a statutory holiday reprted for wrk, tut two and threequart er hams into his shift ixcanis ill and left. Th~~enployer paid him cm and a half tAnes his regular saliq for'the tw arii three-quarter tmrs wrk* . prsuant to Article 19.1 plus ei*t hours rOliday pay tier Article 19.2. Thesnplqreeclainedanentitlenznttoafull eisfithours at aleandaE+alftireshisregularsalazymdsrthethen-wrdingof Article 19.1. 7% icad disagreed, resadng j3at Article 19.1 appliescnlyifanenp~~isactuallyava~le town%. Inthia regard,*- xwsoned .as fol.loia: Nevertheless,~areof& viewthat the guaranteedcreditinclause19.lnust~ ~tobesubjecetothee@qee's- axkidnga~tyfor~. Oncethe enplcyeeisfamdnottibe.cq&leofwrkhg, heistobstrezitedasprwidedfor.else&mrein thecdbctiveagreeuent. Inthecaseofillness anaholiday,anerrplqaetierthisa~ s.bplyreceiveshU&ypay,andthat'~isMr. Ccqwwastreatedcweheleftwcak An imbilitytow* is different frma lade of mrktobsdcne,anda@ttoketreeted. differentlyinintexp~ gvAntee clauses. Theppmeofsudlclauses, tqdeterunnecesmrj sdlehlilqorre&ringof!mrkalstatutory holidays,isstillpremved exmiifcoerequhes anexplcysetobeca@leofworkinginorderto benefit titheguarantee. Inthe sulsequent-ceseof Parscns 31/70 (PIichard), anellplcyee whowrked a ?rhday did mt take a anpsalm* day off. Th3 enp~~Faid)Itnf~ei~th3uIsattine~ahalfpvsuantArticle 19.1, a._+1 as ei$t ,hcurs pey mder Article 19.2. The enplcyee clahed yetan additianl eight hours pay under&&is rrw Article 47.1. This is the provis$cn Mich lists the various holidays that errplwees are entitledto receive. Ths contentian of the Union in Parsons was that Article 47.1 creates a general entitlement tn be paid for a holiday whether it is mrked or not, and Articles 19.1 and 19.2 -6- 8etcuttk~ti~amuntsthatanenplqreewho~saholidayis esltitled to receive. TbeBard disagreed, czncludbq that Article 19.2, sets aut the amxmt myable to all employees for a txzUday, bhetber wa-ksd or mt, tile Article 19.1 sets cut the additid anumt payable to eaplqees v&n actually ti a holiday. The rw3onhgoftheBcElrd~.asfol.lurm: Cur resding of Article 19 is that it stands apart fran and indepmdent of Article (47.1). Cm this interpretation, the functim of Articles 19.1 an3 19.2 are to set alt the entitlem%lt of an idividmlwbisrequiredtowikcnastatutxxy holiday. Cn this reading, Article 19.1 mdes fortheusual- rat+ and Article 19.2 prwideqforenadditialallzonPsof~eighthcurs' payforbdngreqiredtowxkcna,statuto~ holiday. In.e.ffecL then, this readin sees Articles 19.1 d-19.2 providing for pay tit the IT&S of 2-l/2 tims.the ham wrked while the enKt.lemsnttoeighthalrs'pay~to . Article (47.1) remins unaffected; This,of aurse, is thegrievca'spc&tign. It is rendered plausible by the bmrdiq 0fJkticles 19.1 an3 19.2. The cpning WopAs of 19.2, "in %dgitialtothepaym3ntprovidedl?faect.i~~ 19.1", clearly link the tw provisicpls leadiq to the anclusicn that Article 19.2, Wee ArfXcle 19.1, is amcemed exClusivelywith thepqmznt ofpersmswWarerequ.iredtowrkcnstatutoxy holidays. If Article 19.2 is limiksd to this functim, thenitis aneasy steptoanclude th?ltthetotalentitlelrentof20~spvsuatlt to Article 19.1 ard 19.2 k workiq m a statutozyholidayshcllldbeaddq3tothetasi~ entitiementtoahcurs'payprsuantto Article (47.1) of all enplqwes'in the lxx&r&q unit.. Despite theplitusibilityofthis interpretaticn, we are forced w the language of the relevant articles and the presumd intent and expsctatbs of the parties to reject it. We read Article 19.2 as having a mre exparkiwz f+mct.im than thatwhich the griewraccordsit. We accept the Ministry's tugimtznt that Article 19.2 skuld bs read as providing that allenployees,whetheror rot they are required towrk an a statutory holiday, are entitled ta eic$thxu-s'pay for that day. In a &se, then, this mrely cmfirne CT -7- theentitl~topa~forstatuto~holidaye thatwewculdlikely,ifrequired,haw3inferred fmn Article (47.1). Read in this lirplt, the intrcductory wxds of Article 19.2, "in additiai to the paylmt prodded by sectim 19.1*, are nut aUmitat.icnanthesaqeoftheapplicaticnof. Article 19.2 tut rather a onfinmtim that any entitle eernef.under Article 19.1 iB in additim to amI not in lieu of the Article 19.2 entit1euent. TheprcperinterpretaticnofArticle19~again~idetedin Msrtin 34/8.l (D&isle). In that case an enplcyee kk was scheduled to& a holiday suffere3.a he&t attad and accordirgly was unable to do so. The enelcrver paia the erpbyee d*t I-cars bfiby pay, Kparently QI the unders+x%-q that ~.paylrent ws required-ty ,Art.icle 19.2;. The enployee claimd an additimal ei*t hare pay at meardahalf timsshis i-egular ratemderArticle19.1. Auejority ~oftheBzAn3peneldisagreedwiththiaclaim. Relying,.inM# m trhe ream&q in C+sr, the rmjority axcluded that Article 19.1 is triggeredbytheactu3lperfoz7mne ofwrk, andsincethe enployee had rwt wrked m the day in questim, Article 19.1 did iwt apply. 'As an alternatiw basis for dimigsi.q the griemnce, the n~~jarity cencludedthatthe~lplay~lsclaimranccuntertoaprdribiti~in Article 21against mditq premiumpayments or cenpensatingleave. BcardM~rL.~~disagreedwiththena~ity~. It,- his view thit Coqerkad beenwcngly decided. He was also of the view that the a@.icable collectiw agreement provision was mt Article 19.1, tmt Article 51.1. He read the reference to Article 51.1 ti an errplqee's entitlemxk to his "regular salary", as meaning the e&#-it hours pay at tw and a teilf tines his regular zate'the enplujeewldhave receivedhadhewrked theholiday. ~Mr. P&inson . -a- ._ also axcluded that the prchibiticn against -din9 in Article 21 was not ~&.icable. Thsnext,relewntQsein~basUnrbmeau. Asmted above, inthataase at~enplcyee scheduled town% bmholidays did natdog,Q1acccuntofhis~offweak~~ers'rmrpensaticn. Hewas paid cnly ei@thaus pay far both days, and didnot receive anyanpensatinglea~. ArmjorityoftheBcardpanelagreedwithMr. Rdzhson's amclusicn in &t-tin that the prohibitim against pyzmiding in Article 21was not qlicable. Tk mjority did mt, ~r,a~Mr.Robinson'sreaslingthatanenplqteeuMbleto . wrk is entitled.to receive +e sane salary he weld have received had he actually wrkd a schdqled holiday. F&wr, it cmcluded tlmt * Article 53 elltltled the enployee-to his regular saldry, Mil@Article 19.2 entitledhimto an additicmal ei*t kurs pay or a lieu day off. It did not regard Article 19.1 as havin9 any app&katim~ since the en&yes did,notactuallymrkm theholiday. The final paragraph in the mjority ward reads as follms: Onbalance althcughthe ratter is not totally clear, the resolutim of the prcblemis as follavs: . 1. Article 21 does not apply. 2. Article 19.1 does riot amly tecause the Griemrdidmtwrkcri theday inquesticn. 3. TheGriewr is entitled tohis regualar salary under Article 53. 4. TheGriewris entitled- 8hmrs'pay m a lieu dsy under 19.2. Imi~taddthatwere it rut thst Vice-chairnan Pritchard and D&isle seem to accept Article 19.2 as, standing apart frm Article 19.1, I wcllld not ha* so fati. .; .:. -9- ._ 5’. Because theGriemr indicated inadvance that hewishedthe lieudays,heis @titled to tlnse days and the griemnce is allwed, the Ell&qerbeinsairectedto.granthimuoee . E+?d Mm&r Middletar, uho formed part of the rmjority in Mart-bkwanthepanel-thstdeci~edQnr?xfmeau. Hedissentedfmn thenajnrityawardin-u. Whileapprohqofthermsoning inccOper,~.~~~~ofthaviwthatthewardinPar~had erred inlmlding thatTuti+e19.2 applies to erplcyees who & mt wrka h3liday. InMr. MiddletEn's view, the entitleinznt of eqlufees ~donot~aholidayrmstbef~els~reinthe~-nt- mm&y in Article 53 in the. case of an enployee ci~ tiers' cmpensatim. Mr.Middl&readAxticle53asentitlbqanarplcyee marpenmtimtohis regular'py foraholiday, andrwthingmre. In addhi&, Mr. M.iati was of the view that the prchibitim against pyramiding in Article 21 ensured that if~knpensating leave weretobegiwn, itw.lldkexelaltpay. The enplqwr applkd for judicial reviw of the Chartmneau awsrd. Before the Divisional Cnxt, the erpluyer tc& a sumw%at differrent gceiticn~thm it had before the Baard axcerning ha* the relevant prwisicns of th'collective agreement should be interpreted. Tk anplcyer also relied QI the fact that the charbcnneau~avlard had not follmed the reasoning adqted in the Beard's earlier awards. The Divisiaml Cc&t declined to grant the application for judicial review, reasoning khat the award in Charbmneau *as mt patently unreasmable. $WJuly 4, lS85, the Court endorsed the record .as follcW?J: We express mc&hanths Correctness of the intmpretaticmof articles19and 53 of the ~z~iven by the najori,ty of the Board of . We sinply say that, in the li*t of' vhatwewretoldwmadi.fferentar~tmds bsfca-eUeBoard,wa.ssenonscessityinthis caee.~resolvethe~axtrowrsywtmg arbitrators. respite an sxtrsnelypersvasi~ ~~~~Ms&&?I$n3halbshalf0fthe a3wimedthatthe bltel&aKalf~inthenejoriitywardis petmtly unrme. Ths next relewnt case in‘tim was Walbsm et.al. '259/84 Eelisle). That case dealt with the holiday pay entitlmmt'of ei#-A wp~ees Cal lcc&ers' ccrrpensaticn. The Board expressly follcwed the rwmning inicLi-artalneaU.~ Th? enplqer has filed an a&ilatial for judicial reviwoftheward, cmtmdingtitthekardrsfused. toalloJitancppcatunitytodsnm&atevhy -mu shad lmt bs follaued. The he+ relemnt Bcexd pmxaediq was Mdkmdd 366/83 (Springate). ?hts~sedealt.with~arployeewhohadbeenscheduled to WI% two kuiays tut did mt do so bscaum hs m al wrkers" ampensatim. Tl-e enplcyer rqproaw the matter m the basis that thearplcywhadtekenthatwoho~daysinquesticn,andFeidhimNs regular .rate for toth days. Relyins al the Ecard's ward +I tzhwkmau, the lmial crntetrled that the enployee bacentitled to an additimal eight hxrs pay for ?mth days. Th Bmrd reviewed the Bard's jurisprudence and amcluded that the prior Beard awards suggested’ a nuder of possible agq&&ss to' the grievance. Intheintereetsofa~~approacfitothesituati~oferplqt~ m wrkers' c2upnsatim, the Ecerd me1 manimxsly decided to follolf the reasoning in-u. Insodoi.rq,&~Boardamented as follours: Tk difficulty we face is deciding whiti be of reasoni@ r0 follcw. As already indicated, given the language of the col1sct.i~ agreement, wed0 , - 11 - ._ not viw any of the possible approac+s set cut above as mreasmable. In additim, we camwt acceptth~euplayer's contmtimthatthe rlqority award in -u has manifestly zq;y giwn the &a& of clarity in the greeuemwe&mtviwanyofthe possibleapproachee set art above asbeing mnifestlywmg. ThisisaieofthDeecasea kerearbitraWrscmldgiusthesamagreewnt languags different, ~yet reasmable,~ _ interpretatims. Wearsofthetiew,homfer, thatwhere masmablypcssible tJn3Bcard shmld strivzforamsisten~vhendeslingwit?.a pu%imlarissue. Todoot3exwisemAdnean thattheakqcaeofanyprticulargriemncecn anissuend~tdep&altheonpeitialofthe BcezdpanelaesiSnedtohearthe~e. In (Xukmeau,theBcarddealtwiththeveryLsue. KY before us, namely the holiday entitlemznt of aneaplcpes&eduledto~almlidaytut mabletodosobecauseofa cmpmableinjuy; T?le'mjorityawardinchar~uwasjudicially' reviewedbytheDivisiQYIl.~re, whichdeclined to quash it. Inthe interests ofaunifoqn - - -y&i--L; p= to 4wY QE CharfxnneaUtOthe grievance before us. Indoingsorweezqressno qd.nim~towhetherthereascaringin Cha&axmushculdbsa&@.iedtoenplcyeesviiu areoffwcolcduetoam~ le illness. 3.ntheilxmntcase, theurliaiomten3s thattheace.rdshYdd J. follow its* reasmiqin~u. Inlinewiththkrsasonkgin .lhtcase,the unhsuhnits thzktheqriewris entitled toreceipt of 12 luus sick pay tier Article 51.1 in additim to his ei&t hmrs pay tier Article 19.2. As already noted, f3arhumuuseaoase inwlxt.ngan enployee offcn~ers'cc?pm33tim. Thsreasmingin thatcgsehasrot,aefarwweareware,been~lledto~wse inwM.ngan euployeeoffe due toamwnk-related illness. Tk unimcmterx% that this mtters not., relying cm ths fact tbat'in the prior illness cases the unicn did not fram iti,psiticn in the same way as it has k, tiis case, namzly claimixq that the griewr is entitled to be pxid tier both Articles 19.2 and 51.1. In the prior cases the unit claimd payrrent urider both 19.1 and 19.2 tut not under Article 51.1. - 12 - Th3rwme.r inwhichthe unimapprcahed illness cases prior to the ward in Charkmneau, as well as the enplc7yer's 1Crq etardi& practiceoftreetirq ill enployees as if they?nd taken aholiday, indicatecthat neither ths wployer ID1 the unial viwed an ill mplcyee as being entitled to both side pay ynder Article 51.1 arm-3 lwlidaypayuxderArticle19. Tkydisagreedmlyas towhether a sidcenployeeu~~lentitledtobepaid,under~clel9anthesame basisaeifhe?mdactuallywrkedthehOliday. Itvwsinliatof this shared approa& to the'iseue that the Bard in Gxper nade the curmsnt that "Inthe'mseofan illnees m aholiday, an enployee tier this agreemmt sinply receives holiday Fey..." Prior to Charbeaneautheuniandidlrake~attenpttoclaln,Faynent~ra holiday in additim to the anrxub provided for under Article~lS. Thatcase~Par~,~eaclaimwasRadelndertbthArticles19 and47.1wlthrespecttoanenplqreewho~eda~~~. Thec.l.&.m Vraa rejected m the tads of the Beard's &nclueim that the eiployee's entitlemntweelindted toArticle19. Notwithstanding the juriqprudence ad prior camml understandingoftheparties that an illerplcyee~entitledcnlytopaynentlrnderARicle19ianajority of the Qcardpanelin charbglneau oxcluded,that an euplqes m wrkers' capmsatim was entitled to peyrent under Article 19.2, as well.as an additimal payment under Article 53. In HcCemid, the Beard, in the interests of a ax&tent approach to employees off m wrkers' mnpensatim, follortea the reasoning in Chakbnneau. The d&ire for consistency dces ID% kwever, produce the ~~JIE result with respect to errplqees off burk due to a xx-3 wrk-related illn&s. : - 13 - We- satisfied that in ths instant case we should follar the pstundersUndingofthe~esandtheEcard#Mlrelythatthe entit1eaent of an enplcyee off burk ala to illness ie to be famd m1y underArticle19.WeviWthisasareasonableinteqxetatimofthe wllectiveagreesmt. We recognize that as a result of au'anclusim enplqees s&&uledt~bc&aholiday,t~t~le to* so,willke treateddiff~ly~m~whetherthqrareoffworkmworkers' anpensatim or because of a rxx work-related illA. This result, lxwever, flws fran the fact that the Bm.rd,'when dealing with an enplcyee off work mwrkers' ompensatim in chartxaneau, adcpted a different interpretatimofthe wllective agreemmt than the parties and theBcardhadprevicuslyaFplled toenplqeeswhowere ill. In lins with car reasming set&t stove, we are'satisfied that an BrpLYyeevho dces n2twa-k a holiday Cn awmnt of illness is entitledto receius kdiday pay tier Article 19.2. He is not entitled tothe receipt of furtbr antxnts tier Article -51 witi respsct to the a ham revered bf Article 19.2. Given that the grievor~ldactuallyha~~~a12kur&ymVictoriaDay,~d he not been ill, $gically he was entitled to 4 luxs sick pay, bbich mwnthedid receive. Ths griewr is not entitled to any additimal Payne+ Thegriewmceis, accordingly, herebydisavissed. 'Dated at plississauga, this 28th day of January, 1988. i ,,_~. _ ..:. ,; .‘I’ .~. .‘>& ./, 7‘ \. I’ \ c ADDENDtIM Given the G.S.B. jurisprudence to ,date on the interpretation of Articles 19.1, 19.2, 47.1, 51.1 and 53.2 of the Collective Agreement, this Bember.is in support of the position in this Award that - “we should follow the past understanding of the parties and the Board, . . . . . . . . . ...” (p. 13 of the Award) This conclusion and support for the Award was. reached only after a review of the applicable jurisprudence, a consider- ation of what the parties reasonably would’have .agreed to when the language was negotiated, the long standing practice of both parties (to the effect that neither the employer nor the union viewed an ill employee as being entitled to both sick pay under Article.51.1 and holiday pay under Article 191, and considerable contemplation of the issue. In the final analysis the decision reached .was based upon the language and authority of C;E.C.B.A., Section 19, to the effect that the Board II.....: shall decide the matte~r 9, . . . . . . (C.E.C.B.A. - Section 19(l).) It is difficult to leave this case, however, without making several comments: The mischief associated with the in~terpretation and the interrelationship of the above mentioned Articles appears to have resulted from the Parsons - G.k.B. #El/78 award. In. that case the Board read Article 19.2 as having a more expan- sive interpretation than a restrictive relationship .to 19.1. floreover, the Board commented that I . . . . . we accept the Ministry’s argument that Article 1.9.2 should be read as providing that ally employees, whether or not they are.required to .work on a ;tatutory holiday are entitled to eight hours’.pay for that day . . . . . (p.7, G:S;B. #81/78) 2. Support for this Article 19.2 interpretation.continued in the Charbonneau case (G.S.B. #54’4/81), although with some reser- vation, as set out below: “The grievor isentitled to 8 hours pay or a, lieu day under 19.2. I might add that were it not that Vice Chairman Pritchard & Deli~sle ~seem to accept Article 19.2 as standing apart from 19.1, I would nnt havr cn fnwnrl~ n ..-- ..--- “- -- -..-. - (p.7, G.S.B. #544/81) (underscoring added) In G.S.B. #730/83, Vice Chairman Jolliffe commented on / Article 19, as follows: ..i -; .;.,,,: n . . . . . But 19.2 follows immediately after 19.1 and begins with the words “In addition to the payment arovided bv 19.1 . . . . ..I. There cannot be an addition t’o the payment provided by 19.1 uncss there was in fact a payment due under 19.1. To hold otherwise would mean that all employees would be entitled to premium pay or aTeu day whether they worked on the holiday or not. This wou.ld place them all on a footing of equality (‘so far as 19.2 is concerned) with those obliged to work on a holiday instead of enjoying it. It is impossible to believe that this was really the intention of the parties. What they intended was that those who could not get the freedom to celebrate a holiday would receive instead (and in addition to the premium pay in 19.1) either pay for one shift or another day off.” (p.19, 20, G.S.B. #730/83) ,-.- (’ L. Counsel for the union in the subject case contended that the above does not make sense and that it fails to und&stand the interplay amongst Articles 19.1, 19.2 and 47. To this Member the above provides a very realistic interpretation of the language; for indeed, it is just not realistic that (a) the parties negotiated the language of the Agree- ment with the intention of paying an employee who is off work for a statutory holiday, solely, his wages for the day, while i.. (.b) the person who is off work for the statutory holi- \ 3; day owing to illness should have an entitlement to both illness pay and either wages for the day or a - lieu day. In consideration of the complexity of the issues in this case, related jurisprudence, and existing language of the Collective Agreement, a clarification of the respective positions of the parties through negotia~tion would.seem to . be mores appropriate than arbitration. .