February 24, 2010 at 3:00 PM
vol. 1, no. 5
Produced by Ashley Watkins, Executive Assistant, CAW Local 2002
The following legal facts bulletin for Jazz Technical Services are grievances heard and ruled on by arbitrator M. Teplitsky. Since publishing the last bulletin dated October 8, 2009 the bargaining committee has met with Mr. Teplitsky on four (4) occasions. This volume of the Jazz tech. Legal Facts bulletin captures some of those grievances heard from November 09’ through to February 10’. Not all grievances have been listed as some may have been adjourned for a variety of reasons.
Article 6 – Interpretation
Grievance: Management denied a shift exchange between a crew chief and ACA.
Decision:"This grievance raises issues which the parties should address in direct negotiation, if possible. Adjourned to permit such discussions. I remain seized." The arbitrator suggests, the parties develop an MOU outlining such issues as limits on frequency. Additionally, Mr. Teplitsky stated; the Toronto memo would be a good starting point for those discussions.
Article 2.03 – Interpretation
Grievance: The Company has been contracting out the work of cutting carpets without notifying the Union and while having members in the furnishing classification on layoff.
Decision:"The facts in this matter are controverted. Additionally, the employer seeks an arbitration where counsel may attend. I explained at the hearing that although it is not the norm, counsel may attend these reviews which I conduct. Oral evidence may be led. Access to justice requires that the costs of arbitration be reasonable. There is no reason for a matter such as this not to proceed in this forum. Adjourned for discussions. I remain seized."
Article 5 – Interpretation
Grievance: Member “X” contends, when he was given his layoff notice from his classification he was told in writing that he would receive a salary of “X” amount per hours if he bumped into classification “X”. The company has not honoured this contract and continues to pay the member at a lower rate. The members’ decision to bump into another classification was in fact based on the wage he was led to believe he would receive in the new position.
Decision:"The outcome of this case may be determined by Seq. #12 (above grievance dealing with Art. 2.03). Adjourned to be dealt with together with Seq. 12." At the meeting the arbitrator advised, upon further production of evidence and if proven, the estoppel argument may apply and could involve damages.
Article 5 – Interpretation
Grievance: The Company reduced the member’s rate of pay until successfully receiving an ACA.
Decision:"The grievor has 2 weeks to advise where he will complete his ACA endorsement. At that point, I will issue my award."
Article 4.03.03 – Interpretation
Grievance: The union contends that the company has developed a shift schedule for the 2010 year, that has a number of shifts where there are more than 4 "E"’s on shift, and they have not posted for "E" crew chief positions for those shifts.
Decision:"Settled. The employer will post as soon as possible for one additional avionics crew chief in Toronto."
Article 3 – Interpretation
Issue: AOG, Out of Base Assignments. The company assigned members for an out of base assignment, they refused and were subsequently sent home with pay.
Decision:"The employees needed volunteers for an out-of-base, AOG assignment. There were none. The employer then assigned the task to 4 junior employees each of whom refused to undertake the assignment.
The employer then issued a notice to all employees on January 13, 2010 setting out its protocol should this problem arise in the future. I attach it as Appendix 1.
In essence, it applies the rule of “senior choice, junior force”. This is the correct approach absent specific collective agreement language to the contrary. Accordingly, I approve Appendix 1.
With respect to the 4 employees who lost a day’s pay as a result of their refusal, because this was a “new” event and there was uncertainty about their obligation, I direct that if there are no further similar incidents with these employees for 6 months that the one day lost be deposited to their time bank."
For further information, please contact:
Ashley Watkins – CAW Local 2002 Executive Assistant