cityatuscheduling january 28, 2011

8/7/2019 Cityatuscheduling January 28, 2011

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cityatuscheduling-january-28-2011 1/5

1

In the Matter of an Arbitration

Between

The City of Ottawa [Employer]

And

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



2

Supplementary Award Number Two

The parties disagree on the manner in which certain aspects of scheduling are to

be done for operators. This disagreement stems from different interpretations of

the award rendered by this Board dated October 9, 2009. The issues separating

the parties were initially put before arbitrator Kevin Burkett, acting as a rights

arbitrator. Mr. Burkett declined to deal with the issues put before him and instead,

effectively, remitted the issues back to this Board.

The Board has considered the submissions of the parties. We are unanimously

of the view that the answers required lie in the initial award of this Board. We are

further of the view, that our jurisdiction is circumscribed by that award.

Accordingly, it is useful, as a starting point to go back to what the Board decided

regarding scheduling. We indicated that we had looked at how scheduling is

done in the rest of the Province and in major municipalities outside of Ontario.

We indicated that it was evident, from our review of other transit collective

agreements, that the manner in which scheduling was being done at the time at

OC Transpo was not the norm, and in fact was virtually unique. We concluded

that a change to the method of scheduling was warranted.

The Board awarded a Day Booking system. We further awarded that the Day

Booking system was "to be consistent with the majority of transit operators



3

across North America". The parties were ordered to draft the appropriate

scheduling provisions.

Notwithstanding the broad latitude given to the employer to create the schedule,

it was restricted in certain areas. A 5% minimum recovery time between trips was

guaranteed.

The Board awarded that there was to be no change to mixed odd work. That

matter was further dealt with in our first Supplementary Award dated January 7,

2010, where we indicated that the only issue before the Board related to

operators no longer being limited to 8.5 hours mixed odd work and that,

accordingly, no collective agreement language change was required for mixed

odd work.

A further issue for the Board was the spread provided for in the collective

agreement. The parties disagreed on the maximum spread or number of hours in

the day in which an employee's work day must be scheduled. That was dealt with

in both our initial Award as well as our first Supplementary Award. The Board

dealt with the spread in the case of Day Runs, Relief Runs, as well as scheduled

two and three-piece runs. We provided that first, "there shall be no change to

Day Runs or Relief Runs". Accordingly, whatever Day Booking system is

developed it must maintain the spread that applied to Day Runs and Relief Runs.



4

Second, the Board ordered that "the spread for two and three-piece runs shall be

12 hours". Thus, the new Day Booking system must ensure that spread for two

and three-piece runs. Finally, 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. No other issues regarding spread were

awarded by the Board.

We are aware that there is no one universal Day Booking system. That is why, in

our initial award, the Board provided that the Day Booking system to be

developed was to be "consistent" with the majority of transit operators, and not

"identical" to the majority of transit operators.

The Board was not asked to address specific past scheduling practices/ rules

except as identified in our awards. Accordingly, past scheduling practices/rules

were not retained, modified or extinguished directly as a result of our awards per

se. However, 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.

If it has not already done so, the employer is hereby ordered to develop a Day

Booking system consistent with what is done elsewhere but as limited by the

above. Should the union be of the view that what is developed by the employer



5

is not consistent with the majority of transit operators and/or does not respect the

limitations ordered by the Board, the matter may be remitted to us for

consideration as to whether or not the requirements have been met. Should the

parties be unable to agree on the appropriate collective agreement language, we

continue to remain seized.

Ottawa this 28th day of January, 2011

_______________________

M.B.Keller, Arbitrator

I Concur

_______________________

Jim Foley, Employer nominee

I Concur

_______________________

Joe Herbert, Union nominee

cityatuscheduling january 28, 2011

Documents