FRIDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2016
CITATION: University of Ottawa v. Bargaining Unit of the Support Staff et al. 2016 ONSC 7035
R E A S O N S F O R J U D G M E N T
DIVISIONAL COURT, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Swinton, Whitten, McCarthy, JJ.
SWINTON, J. (Orally):
We’ve reached a decision and I will give the reasons of the Court.
The arbitrator’s interpretation of Article 20.4 of the Collective Agreement, an overtime provision, was reasonable. He carefully considered the language of that Article and in particular, the sentence relating to schedules altered on a specific temporary basis. He concluded that Article 20.4 did not apply to the grievors because they did not work modified schedules or schedules altered on a temporary basis within the meaning of the collective agreement. See, in particular, the finding of the arbitrator made at paragraph 281 of the award, where he found that the evening and weekend work was an add-on to the regular schedule. Turning to the conditions in Article 20.4 where there has been an alteration of a schedule on a specific temporary basis. The arbitrator also concluded that although there was a reference to willingness to work evening and weekends in six of the employees’ job descriptions, the reality was that they worked a regular Monday to Friday schedule. With respect to Mr. Pilon, he found that the parties never implemented a flexible schedule despite the reference thereto in Mr. Pilon’s job description. This Court owes deference to those findings of fact.
The arbitrator’s interpretation of Article 20.4 was reasonable, as was his conclusion that the grievors were entitled to overtime. Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
FORM 2
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT (SUBSECTION 5(2))
Evidence Act
I, Jaime L. Oliver, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcription of the recording of University of Ottawa v. The Bargaining Unit of the Support Staff of the University of Ottawa of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation et al. in the Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court on Friday, October 28, 2016 at 161 Elgin Street, Ottawa, Ontario taken from Recording No. 0411_CR36_20161028_093422__10_SWINTOK.dcr, Courtroom No. 36, which has been certified in Form 1.
(Date) Jaime L. Oliver
COPIES OF THIS TRANSCRIPT ARE NOT CERTIFIED AND NOT AUTHORIZED UNLESS AFFIXED WITH THE ORIGINAL SIGNATURE OF THE REPORTER
Ontario Regulation 158/03 – Evidence Act
*This certification does not apply to the (Rulings, Reasons for Judgment, Reasons for Sentence, or Charge to the Jury) which was/were judicially edited.
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
(i)
ENTERED ON PAGE
REASONS FOR DECISION 1
(ii)
Transcript Ordered: ............................October 28, 2016
Transcript Completed: ..........................November 7, 2016
Transcript Judicially Reviewed and Edited:.....November 14, 2016
Ordering Party Notified: ......................November
Divisional Court No. DC-15-2415
DIVISIONAL COURT
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA
Appellant
- and –
The Bargaining Unit of the Support Staff of the University of Ottawa of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation et al.
Respondents
R E A S O N S F O R J U D G M E N T
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE SWINTON, THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE WHITTEN and THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE McCARTHY, on OCTOBER 26, 2016 at OTTAWA, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
L. Harnden Counsel on Behalf of the Appellant
C. Deslormes Counsel on Behalf of the Appellant
J. Phillips Counsel on Behalf of the Respondents