GSB#2011-2425, 2011-2427, 2011-2772

UNION#2011-0205-0018, 2011-0205-0021, 2011-0310-0013

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Papple)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Labour)

Employer

BEFORE

Nimal Dissanayake

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Sheila Riddell Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Barristers and Solicitors Counsel

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Felix Lau Ministry of Government Services Legal Services Branch Counsel

HEARING

November 14, 2013

Decision

1The board is seized with individual grievances filed by Mr. Steven Papple (File 2011-2425), and Mr. Paul Malboeuf (File 2011-2427), as well as a group grievance filed by a number of grievors (File 2011-2772).

2The employer takes the position that the Papple grievance should be severed from the rest and dealt with first. The union submits that all three grievances ought to be heard together.

3All of the grievors are employed as Construction Health & Safety Inspectors, who work primarily in the field. It is common ground that all three grievances relate to travelling the grievors did in May 2011 from their homes to their respective designated offices for work related training. Mr. Papple’s grievance claims “mileage rates” under article 13 of the collective agreement for that travel, for which he used his personal vehicle. The Malboeuf and group grievances do not involve a mileage claim since they used ministry vehicles for the travel in question. Their grievance is about the fact that the employer has characterized the travel using a ministry vehicle as a taxable benefit which must be declared as such by them under s. 6 of the Income Tax Act. They seek by way of remedy an order that the employer change its practice in applying rules under the Income Tax Act.

4The Board has considered the law and submissions of the parties. While it agrees with the union that in a very broad sense all grievances raise the issue of whether the travel in question is “personal travel” or “business travel”, the commonality ends there. There would be minimal overlapping evidence. The legal issues and the interpretations that would be required would be very different between a grievance claiming mileage rates under the collective agreement for use of a personal vehicle, and those involving a determination of how the employer may or may not apply income tax rules.

5Therefore, the Board concludes that considerations of efficiency favour the employer’s position. The Board will hear the Papple grievance first, and the Malboeuf and Group grievances next. To the extent that there may be some common evidence, the Board rules that during the hearing of the Malboeuf and group grievances, the parties may rely on evidence tendered in the Papple matter, to the extent that such evidence is relevant.

6The hearing will continue on the scheduled dates in accordance with the rulings set out herein.