You are on page 1of 6

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

BETWEEN:

CITY OF OTTAWA
("the Employer")

,A,ND:

ATU, LOCAL279
("the Union")

IN THE MATTER OF:

STATED QUESTIONS RE: SCHEDULING WORK

SOLE ARBITRATOR:

Kevin M. Burkett

APPEARANCES FOR EMPLOYER:

Charles Hofley - Counsel
Siobhan O'Brien

APPEARANCES FOR UNION:

David Jewitt - Counsel
Alison Longmore

2010) following a lengthy strike between the parties. In bargaining for the current agreement the Employer sought major changes to these scheduling rules. It is important to record that the Keller board remained seized. had been referred to the Keller interest arbitration board. These parties have not as yet entered into a formal collective agreement. As noted. including the scheduling issues. 2009 and January 7. for the most part. The Union resisted these changes. These questions are attached as Appendix "A" to this award. such that any objection to my jurisdiction on this basis (of which there was none) would have been .20L0. were not found in the collective agreement. There is no dispute with respect to my jurisdiction to hear and determine these matters. In the normal course. including the right to configure the work. prior to the strike. I have before me a number of stated questions arising from the scheduling of operators subsequent to the issuance of an interest arbitration award (dated October 9. the Kelier board handed down its main award on October 9. However. Hence the lengthy strike that was not ended until the issues in dispute.20A9 and a supplementary award dealing with residual scheduling issues on January 7. an interest board of arbitration remains seized until the parties enter into a formal collective agreement. at which point it becomes functus and any dispute as to the meaning or application of the collective agreement is submitted to rights arbitration. the document has been prepared for signature. It is imperative to understand that. employees had configured their own work (since 1989) based on longstanding scheduling rules that.

Whereas I could provide the parties with an answer based on my reading of the Keller awards in light of the submissions of the parties to that board.technical. I am at a loss to understand why the Keller board has not been asked this question. the better labour relations result is to have the question answered in the . do not form part of the collective agreement. in effect. not individual employees. knows with absolute certainty whether or not it intended to. would configure the work. wipe the slate clean and proceed with a scheduling regime based upon the Employer's proposal that was tabled before it. an overarching question arises. The Keller board. Furthermore. what sets this matter apart is the fact that. did the Keller board decide that even though henceforth the Employer. in this regard. intend to. which remained seized. erase the longstanding scheduling rules (that existed outside the collective agreement) such that the scheduling parameters going forward would be as set out in the Employer's position tabled at arbitration or. in effect. as the Union submits. Did the Keller board. in awarding in favour of the Employer. However. In the result. the scheduling rules. it would do so in conformance with the long accepted scheduling rules? The answer to this question should in large part resolve the first stated question that has been submitted to me. for the most part. I am being asked to award upon the language of the Keller awards read within the context of the positions taken by the parties before that board and the submissions made by the parties to that board in support of their respective positions. over time and going forward.

I have decided to adjourn these proceedings in order to allow the parties to appear before the Keller board for the purpose of having this overarching question answered. it is the Keller board that continues to be seized and knows with absolute certainty the answer to these questions. In regard to stated question #3. Having regard to the foregoing. the same considerations apply. given the existence of separate operator spareboard rules and procedures that form part of the collective agreement. Although stated questions #2 and #3 were dealt with by the Keller board in its supplementary award." Again. whatever answer is given. there is an underlying question. that answer must be accepted by both parties as the right answer.e. In regard to stated question #2. Because the parties will be returning to the bargaining table in one month's time. there is an underlying question as to whether the Keller board was of the view that it was dealing with an Employer proposal or a Union proposal and a further question. as to what the Keller board meant when it stipulated that "no collective agreement language change is required for mixed odd work. given the fact that for the most part the scheduling rules have been outside the collective agreement. i.forum where. I would expect the Keller board to schedule a hearing on an expedited basis. the answer intended by the board constituted to resolve the scheduling dispute that precipitated the strike. as to whether the Keller board intended to restrict spares to 72- .

. I do so in order to afford the parties the opportunity to have the underlying questions that they raise put to the Keller board and to thereby have these questions answered in the forum where.^ gt. I also decline to answer stated questions #2 and #3. that answer must be accepted by both parties as the right answer.(ta. Dated this 25th day of Novemb er 20lA in the City of Toronto.hour spreads.. I remain seized in the event that there are any residual 'rights' questions and any questions concerning remedy. whatever answer is given. it is the Keller board that knows with absolute certainty the answer to this question. Accordingly. for the reasons advanced in respect of stated question #1.kfr K-evn BuRrErr . However. I do so in the expectation that whatever answers are given will resolve the issues that have prompted the stated questions before me. Again.

5 hours? b. Local 279 v City of Ottawa Stated Questions Re: Transportation Scheduling Grievance Does the Scheduling system awarded by the Keller Interest Awards on October 9. Create Day and Relief (Straight) runs on Saturday that exceed 8. Require Day (Straight) runs to extend beyond 2A:59? b. Require Mixed Odd Work to extend beyond 20:59? 3" To schedule Spares to work a spread up to L2.5 hours? .20L4 allow the Employer: 1.e. 2009 and January 7.e. Create a Day (Straight) Work that requires an Operator to switch buses (i. specifically: a. Appendix "A" ATU. Create a Relief (Straight) Work that requires an Operator to switch buses (i. to create Day Work comprised of more than 1 Run on 1 bus)? e. To make changes from the pre-Keller regime to Day Runs and Relief Runs.5 hours? d. to create Relief Work comprised of more than 1. Run on 1.bus)? ?" To make changes from the pre-Keller regime to Mixed Odd Work. specifically: a. Create Day and Relief (Straight) runs from Monday to Friday that exceed 9:29 (9 hours and 29 minutes)? c. Create Mixed Odd Work that exceeds 8.