|
|
|
CUPW 2011
Links to CPC Householder Values and Walks by
FSA
|
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
HEARINGS HELD AT TORONTO, ONTARIO, ON THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1993
BETWEEN:
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Corporation
- and -
CANADIAN UNION OF POSTAL WORKERS
Union
AND IN THE MATTER OF A SERIES OF GRIEVANCES UNDER THE REGULAR ARBITRATION PROCEDURE
ARBITRATOR
P. JOHN BRUNNER
APPEARANCES
FOR THE CORPORATION PAUL MULVIHILL, ROBERT GORDICA LANCE WAINE AND PETER BRENNAN
FOR THE UNION JOE LESPERANCE MARY DONNELLY, MIKE DUQUETTE AND ROBERT IRWIN
AWARD
Pursuant to Article 9.32(5)of the collective agreement, I conducted hearings at the City of Toronto, Ontario, on October 6, 1993, in order to hear and determine a series of grievances under the regular arbitration procedure.
At the conclusion of the argument on each grievance, I delivered oral reasons, giving a brief resume as required by Article 9.32(5)(r) of the collective agreement. I now hereby confirm my conclusions.
6. In the Matter of a Group Grievance by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers - # 602-92-01092 and the Grievance of Tom Tsolakis - # 602-92-01058 - 6 -
Insofar as this grievance raises the failure of the Corporation to cover the term employees for the benefits set out under Article 44.09 of the collective agreement, this grievance is allowed and it is declared that the employees in question should have been covered for superannuation, death benefits and disability insurance deductions effective the first day after the expiration of a six month period starting from the time that they became term employees. It is conceded that this now will require the payment of substantial monies by the employees as they will be called upon to make contributions for several past years. It is submitted that this would work a serious hardship upon the employees. In my view, this contention is answered by Article 35.07 of the collective agreement, which has application by reason of the fact that the employees were overpaid in wages by virtue of the Corporation's failure to make the requisite deductions. Accordingly, where the amount of overpayment is more than $50.00 in a pay period, and provided that the employee so advises local management that the payment in question would create a hardship, an arrangement is to be made between the Corporation and the employee to limit the deduction for past contributions to not more than 10% of the employee's pay for each pay period until the entire amount of the employee's contribution has been recovered.
Counsel for the Corporation has expressed a concern that my order may contravene the provisions of the Public Service Superannuation Act, R.S. Chapter P-36. If that is so, either counsel is free to bring the matter back before me, in order that I may make whatever adjustments to the relief that I have granted to make my order consistent with the provisions of that statute. - 7 - With respect to that part of the grievance which involves long term employees in Group 2-PO external who were hired for a period of 20 working days or more and have accumulated a total of at least 3 months of continuous employment, the grievance is allowed on consent and it is declared that those employees are and were entitled to be covered by the group surgical medical insurance plan under Article 30.01 from and after the date that their cumulative continuous employment reached 3 months.
This grievance also raises a question as to the interpretation of Article 44.04 of the collective agreement and in particular whether it extends to both short term employees who have accumulated more than 3 months of continuous employment made up of contracts of less than 20 working days duration as well as to long term employees, that is employees who were hired under contracts of more than 20 working days who were continuously employed for at least 3 months or whether it has application only to those who are hired under one single contract of employment of 3 months or more duration. This matter has been the subject of several arbitration awards but only one of those has addressed the issues since the amendments that were introduced by the current collective agreement. All previous decisions as I understand it were under the predecessor collective agreement which is somewhat different in structure and context. In my view, there is some merit in the Corporation's contention that there is an ambiguity in Article 44.04 of the collective agreement as to its application. There is uncertainty as to whether it extends to short term employees (Article 44.02), long term employees (Article 44.03), employment consisting of both short term and long term employment or whether it applies only to a person who was hired under a contract
- 8 -
which consists of a term of at least 3 months. This is a matter which I think is of sufficient importance to these parties that it should be dealt with on proper evidence and submissions including extrinsic evidence as to the circumstances surrounding the negotiations which led to the amendments to the current collective agreement. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is an exceptional case which should be referred to formal arbitration under Article 9.26(5)(n) of the collective agreement and I do so at the request of the Corporation.
DATED AT TORONTO this 12, day of October, 1993.
P. JOHN BRUNNER, ARBITRATOR
|
