OCHU

In the Matter of an Interest Arbitration BetweenParticipating Hospitals

(Hereinafter referred to as the “Hospital” or the “Employer”)And Canadian Union of Public Employees(Hereinafter referred to as the “Union”Concerning Local Issues – Supplemental AwardBoard: Felicity D. Briggs, Chair Joe Herbert, Union NomineeCarol Boettcher, Hospital Nominee

Supplemental Award
The parties asked this Board to clarify a number of issues that have arisen since the issuance of our award for the Union and the Participating Hospitals. These inquiries were in the form of questions. The Board met in executive session to address and determine these matters. We will address each question in turn.

Question Regarding RPN Wage Rate Adjustment
The end rate awarded for those hospitals with this wage grid outstanding was $25.62, effective June 1, 2009. What adjustment (if any) is to be made to the other steps of the RPN wage grid at each hospital?
The Board intended that the parties are to maintain the same percentage relationship to the maximum rate as existed in the Hospital’s previous wage grid.

Questions Regarding Local Wage Grids
The parties informed the Board that there are a number of questions with respect to local wage adjustments awarded by the Board. As these questions fall into two main categories, they have been summarized below:
1. When the Board awards OPSEU Central rates, does this imply the adoption of the entire OPSEU Central Grid? What is the result where the number of steps on the OPSEU Central Grid differs from the existing grid at the affected Hospital?
Yes. Employees are to be placed on the step which accords to their service in the classification.
2. When the Board awards OPSEU Central rates effective September28, 2009, which rates are being awarded? The expired 2008 rates that were provided to the Board as part of the written briefs, or the April 1, 2009 rates that have just been released by the Gray Board of Arbitration?
The Board awarded the expired 2008 OPSEU Central rates that were provided to the Board during the course of the various days of hearing.

These two questions affect the following Hospitals’ classifications:

Pembroke Regional Hospital
West Nipissing General Hospital Rouge Valley Health System Trillium Health Centre The Scarborough Hospital Riverside Health Care Facilities Ross Memorial Hospital Wingham & District Hospital
Carleton Place & District Memorial Hospital
“Technical and Paramedical” employees
Pharmacy Technicians Biomedical Technologist Patient Care Technician Laboratory Technician Pharmacy Technician Pharmacy Technician Pharmacy Technician Laboratory Assistant Pharmacy Technician

3. In its submissions, the Union proposed Central OPSEU Technician wage rates for the following CUPE classifications, as listed below:

The Scarborough Hospital
Riverside Health Care Facilities
Northumberland Hills Hospital
Registered Orthopaedic Technologist
Health Records Technician
Health Records Clerk Rehabilitation Assistant
OPSEU Technician 4
OPSEU Technician 2
OPSEU Technician 2
OPSEU Technician

Ross Memorial Hospital
Wingham & District Hospital
Carleton Place & District Memorial Hospital
Health Records Technician
Dietary Technician Cardiology Assistant
Health Records Technician
Health Records Technician
2
OPSEU Technician 2
OPSEU Technician 2
OPSEU Technician 3
OPSEU Technician 2
OPSEU Technician 2
What did the Board award?
The Board awarded the expired 2008 rates that were provided by CUPE for the OPSEU classifications identified herein.

Questions Posed from Individual Hospitals Pembroke Regional Hospital
1. When reviewing item 6, the Unit Clerk rate is increased to $20.47 effective the date of the award. What adjustment (if any) is to be made to the other steps of the grid?
The parties are to maintain the same percentage relationship to the maximum rate as existed in the Hospital’s previous wage grid.
2. TheHospitalnotedthatthisclassificationwasreclassifiedtoporterin March, 2008, and proposed a Letter of Understanding to engage in a
joint evaluation. What is the Board’s award regarding this item? We did not award the proposed Letter of Understanding.
3. There was a change awarded to the uniform allowance provisions of the agreement. Could the Board confirm whether or not it has been left to the parties to determine the manner of implementation?
Yes. The Board remains seized if the parties are unable to complete the implementation of the provision.
West Nipissing General Hospital
1. Regarding the Board’s award on Uniform Allowance: there is no mention as to the basis upon which this amount is to be paid.
The Board awarded the quantum of the uniform allowance. If the parties are unable to resolve the remaining wording of the provision, the Board remains seized.
Rouge Valley Hospital
1. Can the Board indicate whether or not the awarded OPSEU Central rate for the Biomedical Technologists included the Senior Biomedical Technologist?
Yes it does.
Trillium Health Centre
1. Paid Holidays – the Board awarded that two “float” days be replaced with two fixed holidays (Easter Monday and Remembrance Day). What did the Board intend in its award for those employees that had already utilized these float days for this year (2009)? Are these employees entitled to Remembrance Day as a paid holiday?
The Board intended that full-time employees would receive the number of paid holidays set out in the Central portion of the collective agreement. A full–time employee who had already utilized in the two float days in 2009 would not be entitled to holiday pay for Remembrance Day.
Halton Health Services
1. For clarity, should the awarded language read “We award the Milton/Oakville Sites Trades rates to those at the Georgetown Site.”
Yes.
Ross Memorial Hospital
1. Regarding the Uniform Allowance: For clarity, should the awarded language read “...and shall [commence] the first full pay in January?”
Yes.
The Board continues to remain seized of implementation issues. Dated in Toronto this 11th day of March, 2010.
Felicity D. Briggs, Chair
Carol Boettcher, Hospital Nominee (concurring) Joe Herbert, Union Nominee (concurring)


This recent rights arbitration decision concerns the options available to workers facing a transfer of services. In this case the arbitrator awarded that employees faced with a transfer have the right to either transfer with their work or to exercise their rights under their collective agreement, to bump, elect early retirement, sever etc.