Canadian Labour Reporter

March 30, 2015 8 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2015 was a job available, however, he was required to take a two-day training course, for which Der- bitsky said he could not get time off from an important class at the University of Winnipeg. As such, the Canadian Union of Public Employees filed a griev- ance, arguing the city did not do its part to inform Derbitsky of the options available to him. The city argued it was the union that failed the employee, in the same regard. The union described that, typically, when an employee's income protection runs out, they seek accommodation assistance. When the aquatics department became aware of the available position, Derbitsky was in- formed of the required training dates. When he said he could not attend, the city informed Der- bitsky he would no longer be considered for the position. As his managers saw it, Derbitsky chose to go to school and not work. That Derbitsky was unable to attend was not indicative of the fact he was unwilling to attend, the union said. No one informed the grievor of alternative training dates, which could have taken place as early as one month later. The union argued it was not in- formed of such a date, and Der- bitsky testified at the hearing that that was the first time he was made aware of a potential alter- native. The responsibility lies with the city, the union argued, add- ing, "The grievor should not be expected to be an expert in these matters and... he did all he could have been expected to do." In making his decision, arbi- trator Michael Werier sought to determine whether the employer had accommodated the grievor to the point of undue hardship. Because the accommodation process is a unique one requiring collaboration between the em- ployer, union and grievor, Werier noted open and frank communi- cation is necessary. "Patience and compromise is often required," he explained. "The concept of undue hard- ship is sometimes difficult to de- fine. However, it is clear that for an employer to establish undue hardship, they must show that they had made genuine bona fide efforts to explore options and alternatives to facilitate the ac- commodation process." In this case, the city's policy incorporated that requirement, but it failed to comply with its own obligation. "The process ended too quick- ly," Werier added. Therefore, the grievance was upheld and the city was ordered to financially reimburse Der- bitsky for any time lost. reference: City of Winnipeg and the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Local 500. Michael D. Werier — arbi- trator. John D. Jacobs for the employer, Kathy McIlroy for the union. Sept. 3, 2014. employees file more than 300 grievances following strike More THan 300 grievances were filed against the College Employer Council in Ontario af- ter employees returned to work following a three week strike. Employees filed the griev- ances as a result of issues arising from their return to work follow- ing a 2006 strike. The union rep- resenting the employees — the Ontario Public Service Employ- ees' Union — called for compen- sation for an increased workload following the return from the strike. The strike ended when the parties reached a new collective agreement. In addition to the agreement, the parties negoti- ated a "return-to-work proto- col" that set out the terms for the employees' return to work on March 27, 2006. The protocol provided that the work stoppage would not be treated as hav- ing been worked and, therefore, employees' salaries would be re- duced accordingly. The protocol also required employees to complete the de- livery of their courses and their course material, despite the time lost during the work stoppage. To facilitate this, the protocol set out a reduction in time spent on professional development. Despite the protocol, however, employees took issue with their return to work. The grievances were divided into six broad categories. The parties agreed that a limited number of claims in each cate- gory would be representative for all of the claims in that category for the sake of managing the large number of grievances. The first group of grievances — claims for complementary functions — claimed teachers were required to perform addi- tional work in order to complete the school semester within the time frame set out by the em- ployer. According to the union, this work would result in the em- ployees working overtime and should, therefore, result in over- time payments. The employer, however, as- serted the strike and return to work were atypical circum- stances and the additional work performed by employees to com- plete the semester on time was addressed in the return-to-work protocol. The arbitration board — made up of chair Norm Jesin, employer nominee Carla Zabek and union nominee Pamela Munt-Madill — agreed and dis- missed the claims covered by this category. Claims for additional teach- ing contact hours and claims for extra hours worked by academic counsellors were addressed to- gether. The union claimed em- ployees were required to teach additional contact hours even though the semester was not ex- tended and employees should be compensated for those addition- al hours. Similarly, the union claimed academic counsellors should be granted overtime pay for ad- ditional work performed as a re- sult of their return following the strike. The employer, however, ar- gued that even if the work per- formed by these employees was greater than the weekly maxi- mums, the grievances could only succeed if the additional work was authorized by the employer. The arbitration board found these categories raised arguable claims and should be allowed to proceed. The next group of grievances demanded compensation for lost time for activities in the non- teaching period. The academic year is divided into teaching and non-teaching periods. In an ef- fort to complete the delivery of courses despite the work stop- page, the parties agreed to a re- duction in time spent on profes- sional development. Because this issue was covered in the return-to-work protocol, the employer argued, the em- ployees had no right to grieve for lost time in the non-teaching period. The arbitration board agreed and the grievances covered by this category were dismissed. Another group of grievanc- es claimed compensation for course revisions and associated additional work. The arbitration board found these claims were covered by the protocol in the same way the claims for complementary func- tions were and the grievances were therefore dismissed. The final group of grievances concerned miscellaneous claims, all of which were dismissed by the arbitration board. In conclusion, the arbitra- tion board found the grievances claiming additional teaching contract hours and extra hours worked by academic counsel- ors raised arguable claims and should be allowed to proceed. All other grievances were dis- missed. reference: College Employer Council and the Ontario Public Service Employees' Union. Arbitration board — Norm Jesin, Chair; Carla Zabek, Employer nominee; Pamela Munt-Madill, Union nominee. Feb. 25, 2015. ArbitrAtion AwArds < from pg. 1

• Cover