GSB# 2016-2836; 2017-1094; 2017-1919; 2017-3587; 2020-2070

UNION# 2017-0601-0004; 2017-0601-0007; 2017-0601-0011; 2018-0601-0002;

2020-0601-0003

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Smieja)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services)

Employer

BEFORE

Christopher Albertyn

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Jane Letton Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Counsel

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Ferina Murji Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Senior Counsel

SUBMISSIONS

Written Submissions received

Decision

1Previous decisions have been issued in this matter. A final decision was issued on January 6, 2021.

2In that decision an award was made for the payment of money due by the Employer to the Grievor.

3Subsequently, the Union asked for leave to allow the Grievor to write a written submission. This request was not opposed, and such leave was granted.

4The Grievor has filed an undated submission.

5He believes more money is owed to him by the Employer than was ordered in the January 6, 2021 decision.

6The Grievor’s first claim, described as his “first financial interest”, is that he is owed an additional $12,000 by the Employer. He believes that money due to him by the WSIB was not paid to him at the Employer’s instance, presumably resulting in the alleged short payment to him. He contends that the financial information provided to him by the Employer is deficient, making it impossible for him to determine exactly how much is due.

7In June 2020 the Employer provided a comprehensive Excel document to the Union (and the Grievor) that shows every amount paid to the Grievor by the Employer and by the WSIB, and for what purpose, in the period March 27, 2013 to January 26, 2015 (“the payments document”).

8The above period more than covers the period of the Grievor’s claims in this matter.

9The Grievor does not point to any error or miscalculation in the payments document.

10On its face, there does not appear to be any error in the payments document, which makes clear that no further amount is due to the Grievor by the Employer than what was ordered in the January 6, 2021 decision.

11In the circumstances, assuming jurisdiction to be able to reconsider, I am not persuaded that the Grievor’s first claim warrants any reconsideration of the January 6, 2021 decision.

12The Grievor’s second claim – his “second financial interest” – is that the pay slips he has do not assist him to ascertain what happened to payments due to him in the period after the initial 65 days of his going onto WSIB benefits and the date the WSIB started paying him. Consequently, the Grievor asks for full financial disclosure of what was due to him by the Employer and by the WSIB, with details of what was paid to him.

13The answer to this second claim is the same as that to the first. The payments document sets out fully what was paid to the Grievor during the relevant period, and what was due to him by both the Employer and by the WSIB. The Grievor’s submissions do not cast doubt on its validity. The payments document does not disclose that any additional amounts are owing to the Grievor.

14The Grievor’s third claim – his “third financial interest” – is that he is entitled to claim interest on the delay of payments he received from the WSIB as a result of the Employer’s conduct.

15All interest owing to the Grievor was addressed at the hearing of this matter, as described in the January 6, 2021 decision. Assuming jurisdiction to be able to reconsider, I am not persuaded to reconsider the decision based on this submission.

16The Grievor’s fourth claim – his “fourth financial interest” – is that excessive tax was deducted from his pay by the Employer. He says that the Employer used the wage rate of $36.54 to calculate the tax deduction from his pay, when his rate of pay was $32.64 per hour.

17The payments document makes clear that all calculations with respect to the Grievor’s pay were made on the basis that his rate of pay was $32.64 per hour, as he claims. Nowhere is there reference to any calculation based on a pay rate of $36.54 per hour. In the circumstances, no change to the January 6, 2021 decision is warranted.

18The Grievor’s fifth claim concerns how the calculation of the deductions from his current disability payments is made. That issue is not part of what was addressed in the January 6, 2021 decision and therefore falls outside of the scope of that decision.

19The Grievor’s sixth claim is that double CPP and EI deductions were made from the disability benefits he received in 2013. The payments document does not show what amounts were deducted. The Employer is given an opportunity to respond to this aspect of the Grievor’s submission.