You are on page 1of 5


In the Matter of an Arbitration


The City of Ottawa [Employer]


Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 279 [Union]

Re Stated Questions

Before: M. Brian Keller, Arbitrator

Jim Foley, Employer Nominee

Joe Herbert, Union Nominee

Appearances: Charles Hofley, for the Employer

David Jewitt, For the Union

Hearing by way of written submissions

We indicated that it was evident. from our review of other transit collective agreements. The issues separating the parties were initially put before arbitrator Kevin Burkett. 2 Supplementary Award Number Two The parties disagree on the manner in which certain aspects of scheduling are to be done for operators. acting as a rights arbitrator. We are unanimously of the view that the answers required lie in the initial award of this Board. as a starting point to go back to what the Board decided regarding scheduling. that our jurisdiction is circumscribed by that award. remitted the issues back to this Board. it is useful. and in fact was virtually unique. effectively. This disagreement stems from different interpretations of the award rendered by this Board dated October 9. Mr. We further awarded that the Day Booking system was "to be consistent with the majority of transit operators . Accordingly. that the manner in which scheduling was being done at the time at OC Transpo was not the norm. 2009. The Board awarded a Day Booking system. We indicated that we had looked at how scheduling is done in the rest of the Province and in major municipalities outside of Ontario. Burkett declined to deal with the issues put before him and instead. The Board has considered the submissions of the parties. We concluded that a change to the method of scheduling was warranted. We are further of the view.

. it was restricted in certain areas. where we indicated that the only issue before the Board related to operators no longer being limited to 8. The Board dealt with the spread in the case of Day Runs. That was dealt with in both our initial Award as well as our first Supplementary Award. The parties disagreed on the maximum spread or number of hours in the day in which an employee's work day must be scheduled. Relief Runs. The Board awarded that there was to be no change to mixed odd work. no collective agreement language change was required for mixed odd work.5 hours mixed odd work and that. "there shall be no change to Day Runs or Relief Runs". A further issue for the Board was the spread provided for in the collective agreement. We provided that first. Notwithstanding the broad latitude given to the employer to create the schedule. The parties were ordered to draft the appropriate scheduling provisions. 3 across North America". A 5% minimum recovery time between trips was guaranteed. That matter was further dealt with in our first Supplementary Award dated January 7. as well as scheduled two and three-piece runs. whatever Day Booking system is developed it must maintain the spread that applied to Day Runs and Relief Runs. accordingly. 2010. Accordingly.

in our initial award. the Board ordered that "the spread for two and three-piece runs shall be 12 hours". the Board provided that the Day Booking system to be developed was to be "consistent" with the majority of transit operators. the employer is hereby ordered to develop a Day Booking system consistent with what is done elsewhere but as limited by the above. 4 Second. If it has not already done so. Thus. The Board was not asked to address specific past scheduling practices/ rules except as identified in our awards. our first Supplementary Award provided that what had been awarded could be done by deleting the word "normally" in the case of scheduled to and three-piece runs. modified or extinguished directly as a result of our awards per se. the new Day Booking system must ensure that spread for two and three-piece runs. Should the union be of the view that what is developed by the employer . That is why. Accordingly. past scheduling practices/rules were not retained. We are aware that there is no one universal Day Booking system. it is possible that there will have to be changes in order to allow the employer to implement a Day Booking system which is consistent with what is done elsewhere and such changes are to be made. Finally. No other issues regarding spread were awarded by the Board. and not "identical" to the majority of transit operators. However.

5 is not consistent with the majority of transit operators and/or does not respect the limitations ordered by the Board. Employer nominee I Concur _______________________ Joe Herbert. 2011 _______________________ M. Ottawa this 28th day of January.B. Arbitrator I Concur _______________________ Jim Foley. Union nominee . the matter may be remitted to us for consideration as to whether or not the requirements have been met.Keller. Should the parties be unable to agree on the appropriate collective agreement language. we continue to remain seized.