FPSLREB Decisions

Compensation for standby duty - Employee designated for standby duty - Equitable distribution of standby duties - Delay in filing of grievance - Ongoing grievance - Operational Services Group - the grievors were maintenance technicians - the building where they worked required the electrical and air conditioning systems to operate all the time - these systems are controlled by a central computer, which diagnoses failures - they asked to be designated permanently for standby duty - the employer refused on the ground that they did not know how to operate the central computer - at the time, the employer considered that only one person had that knowledge - however, from time to time, another person acted as a replacement and received standby compensation - further, two electricians had been designated to perform standby duties - one month after refusing the grievors' request, the employer agreed to provide training to employees wishing to be designated for standby duty - subsequently, at the time of a strike and the transition to the year 2000, the grievors were designated to perform standby duty for a specific period - about six months after the employer had agreed to provide training, the grievors challenged the employer's failure to designate them for standby duty - five months after the filing of the grievances, the employer introduced a program to teach how to operate the central computer - six weeks later, the grievors were designated for standby duty - the employer objected to the grievances on the ground that they were not filed within 25 days of the grievors learning the facts giving rise to the grievance, contrary to the provisions of the collective agreement - the employer also argued that it had the discretion to designate the employees it wanted for standby duty and that, in the circumstances, this authority had been exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily - the adjudicator found that the grievances were ongoing and could cover the 25 days prior to their filing - he also found that it was the employer's right to designate employees for standby duties and that the decisions made in this regard were not unreasonable or discriminatory - however, the adjudicator found that to allow the employer to unduly delay the training that it had agreed to provide would be the same as allowing the employer to ignore its obligation under the collective agreement with respect to the equitable distribution of standby duties among the employees the employer had agreed to designate for this purpose - in the circumstances, the adjudicator found that the employer could have designated the grievors some four months earlier - given the rotation within the work unit, the adjudicator ordered the employer to pay the grievors the equivalent of two weeks of compensation for standby duty. Grievances allowed in part. Cases cited:Helmer (166-2-25427); MacAdams (166-2-26601); Angers (166-2-21622 à 21624, 21751 and 21752, 21763 to 21766 and 21759 and 21760).