Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 1750 v. The Crown in Right of Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board), 2014 CanLII 8303

GSB#2012-4654

UNION# 13-08

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 1750 (Union)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board)

Employer

BEFORE

Owen V. Gray

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Frederick Ho National Representative Canadian Union of Public Employees

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Ernie Soulliere Labour Relations Consultant Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

HEARING

January 10, 2014.

DECISION

1The parties are in dispute about whether an employee subpoenaed to appear as a witness in a matter that does not arise out of his or her employment is entitled under Article 16.02 to be paid his or her salary for the necessary period of absence. Article 16.02 reads as follows:

16.02 Jury Duty

An employee who is called for Jury Duty, subpoenaed as a witness or required in court for matters arising out of their employment, will be paid their salary for the necessary period of absence from work. Any payment received, excluding expenses, will be paid to the Employer.

The parties’ dispute is about whether the phrase “for matters arising out of their employment” modifies both “subpoenaed as a witness” and “required in court,” as the employer says it does, or only modifies “required in court,” as the union contends. The parties agree that that phrase does not modify “called for Jury Duty.”

2The employer argues that if the parties had intended that the phrase “for matters arising out of their employment” would only apply to “required in court” they would have put a comma between the phrase “subpoenaed as a witness” and the word “or.” As the union observes, it is a matter of debate among those concerned with such matters whether a comma (sometimes called an “Oxford” or “serial” comma) should be used before the conjunction that appears before the last item a list in which the preceding items are separated by commas. It is apparent that the parties have not followed that convention consistently throughout their collective agreement.

3The union argues that someone “subpoenaed as a witness” is “required in court,” so the phrase “subpoenaed as a witness” would be superfluous if the parties intended the qualification “for matters arising out of their employment” to apply to it as well as to “required in court.” The employer was unable to identify a circumstance to which, in its view, the phrase “subpoenaed as a witness for matters arising out of their employment” would apply but “required in court for matters arising out of their employment” would not.

4One of the guiding principles of collective agreement interpretation is that the parties should be presumed to have intended all of the words they used to have meaning. An interpretation that renders some of the words used in a provision superfluous is less tenable than one that does not.

5Accordingly, I find and declare that under Article 16.02 of the parties’ collective agreement an employee “subpoenaed as a witness” is entitled to paid leave whether or not their testimony is to be given in a matter “arising out of their employment.”