GSB #0413/99
OPSEU#99U039
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Fogal et al.)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of the Attorney General)
Employer
BEFORE Felicity Briggs Vice Chair
FOR THE Nelson Roland, Counsel
GRIEVOR Barrister and Solicitor
FOR THE Steve Patterson, Counsel
EMPLOYER Legal Services Branch
Management Board Secretariat
HEARING December 19, 2000 and January 18, 2001.
DECISION
During negotiations for the present collective agreement, the parties signed a Memorandum of Agreement regarding possible imposition of discipline for certain alleged strike related activity. On May 3, 1999 the Employer sent a letter to the Union that stated, in part:
This is to inform you that, as part of non-disciplinary action, certain OPSEU employees engaged in illegal strike activity during March 1999, will not be paid for the period of the activity. Further, as disciplinary action under the memorandum, ministries will be sending letters of reprimand to the employees involved. Attached you will find a list of the specific employees, their ministry, location and the dates of the illegal strike activity.
In accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement, the parties asked the Board to mediate/arbitrate the two issues in dispute. At the first day of hearing the parties agreed that I would have jurisdiction over all matter that flow from the jurisdiction, whether direct or indirect. There were in excess of four hundred employees from three ministries and twenty different workplaces involved. At a hearing day on September 7, 2000, the Employer informed the Board and the Union that it was not proceeding with the issue of the imposition of discipline. However, that left the issue of whether sick leave would be paid for those employees who did not attend at work. Given the vast number of employees involved and the potential for lengthy litigation, the parties made submissions about the process that should be followed for the efficient management of the outstanding matters. In a decision issued in November of 2000, I established a process to be followed. In accordance with that procedure, we scheduled two days of hearing at Maplehurst Correctional Centre outside Toronto on December 19 and 20, 2000. Notice was sent to each of the six employees affected. In accordance with my order, particulars were provided to the Employer in advance of the hearing. Because certain absenteeism information was not available to the Employer at this time, the parties’ submissions were provided on January 18, 2001.
It is not my intention to review all of the evidence at this point. I will, at a later date, provide reasons for my decisions. For now, it is sufficient to say Mr. R. Briese is the only employee that I found to have been legitimately ill on the day at issue. I remain seized in the event that there is any difficulty with the implementation of this award.
We will continue to attend at various workplaces around the province to hear and determine outstanding matters. I expect that notice will be provided to all affected employees.
Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of February, 2001.