HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-0398.Carnduff et al.87-11-26Between:
Before:
0402/%6, 0403/86
0404/%6, 0405/%6
0406/86, 0407/86
For the Grievor:
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
For the Employer:
Hearing:
OPSEU (Carnduff et al)
Grievor
and
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of the Solicitor General)
Employer
J. E. Enrich Vice Chairman \.
F. Taylor Member
M. F. O'Toole Member
C. G. Paliare
COUllSel
Gowling and Henderson
Barristers and Solicitors
A. P. Tarasuk /
Barrister and Solicitor
Central Ontario Industrial Relations Institute
October 27, 1987
.<
i”. ,
..,. .’ DECISION
Placed before this pane1.i~ a group of ten grievancee numbered GSB
#0398/86 to 407186 in which the grievor6 claim reclassification from
Clerk 4 General to Clerk 5 General. All the grievor6 work in the
Payroll Section of the Ministry of the Solicitor General. At.the
outset of the hearing the Union presented a request to adjourn these
proceedings. The adjournmeat was contested by the Employer.
The Union advised the Board that since the grievances were filed
in April 1986, the classification system had changed to a new system
lkm as the Office Administration Group (OAG) system which was given
effect retroactive to December 3,.1985. Accordingly, the same grievers
have filed a second. series of grievances claiming reclassification
under th;? new system from OAG 8 to OAG’lO.. The Board was advisedthat
file numbers have been assigned by the Registrar.~to these grievances,
.’ but they are not yet scheduled for hearing. It was submitted that the
evidence to be adduced concerning the grievers’ job functions would be”
‘~ eubstautially the same for both series of’ grievances ~uuder the fold and L.v-.*,-.:. _ : ._
new classification systems. This is borne out by a let& filed in
evideuce from Ms. Truman, Assistant Director of the Employer. The
letter is undated but was stamped as received on September 25.~1987 by
the offices of the Grievance Settlement Board. This letter was
forwarded to Mr. Pratt of the Unloo by the Board on October 9, 1987.
Mr. Paliare advised the Board that the letter could not be located in
Mr. Pratt’s files and he had not heard about the letter until theFriday
before the hearing, which was too late to respond. The letter reads as
follows:
,
Lrievancf Settlements Board
180 Dundas Street West
Suite 2100
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 128
Attention: Ms. T.A. Innies, Registrar
Dear Ms. Inniee:
BE: Grievance of Carnduff et al GSBp 389/86 - 407186
Grievance of Fernandes G8BP2150/86
Grievance of Carnduff et al (OAG # not assigned)
Grievance of Fernandes (OAG d uot assigned) ~...~.._._.___......~..
We have recently received auarbitration date of October 27,
1989 at 1O:OO A.M. for GSB1389186 - 407j86 Carnduff. As yet,
ve have not received dates for tlwother three grievances
mentioned above.
All four cases are Classification grievances within the
Payroll Section of this Ministry. There is a great deal of
job detail relating to,the working level position; held by 10
incumbents (Carnduff et al) and their group leader,.
(Fernandes).
The second set of grievances cover the same job facts, but
grieve the placement in the Office Administration class.,
series (OAG). ~.~, ; ,.,. ~:,,;; .i, ; _ ,‘.Y~. .:~
Due to the fact that all’of the above grievances involve much
of the same evidence and witnesses, we would like to request
that these four cases be m-scheduled to allov for them to be
.heard several consecutive days by the same paoel’of the Board
so as to avoid repetition. If this is not possible, we would
like to reqneat,that the cases be scheduled before the same
Board members within as close a proximity of time as
possible.
Yours truly,
C . J . Truman
Assistant Director
Mr. Tarasuk on behalf of the Employer pointed out that although
much of the evidence would be commoa to both series of grievanCes under
the new and old classification systems, there are issues which are
peculiar to the classification grievances under the old system, which
Qould not be resolved by the resolution of the classification grievance
filed under the OAG system. For instance, Mr. Tarasuk pointed out that
the grievances filed under the old classification system claim relief
retroactive to ALgust 1, 1985. whereas relief under the new
classification system could be claimed only from December 31, 1985.
For this reason, he contended that it was not necessary ro delay
hearing the grievances under the old classificati?n system. /
Furthetiore, Hr. Tarasuk submitted that hit was not conducive to
harmonious labour relations to frustrate the resolution of these
grievances by a further delay. Finally he submitted that the Employer
had ,been put to the expense of preparing for the hearing of these
grievances, since the Employer had received no timely~‘reply to the
proposal contained in the letter of Ms. Truman.
Having heard the submissions of the parties and after
deliberation, the Board delivered the folloving reply to the parties:
‘While the Board.has sympathy for the frustration that the
Employer may feel at a further delay, the Board is satisfied that
the balaoce~of convenience and the interests of the pakties would
be served best by an adjournment.
The Board bas decided therefore to grant an adjournment sine
die of the group of classification grievances numbered PO396/86 to
0407/86 on condition tbat.these grievances be consolidated with
the hearings of the grievances filed by the same grievor6 claiming
reclassification from OAG 8 to OAG 10. The effect of this ruling
is to effect a consolidation of these two series of grievances -
(pre-OAG and post-OAG) but it would open to the panel which hears
the two series to decide in which order it wishes to hear all the
grievances, after hearing submlsslons of the parties.
A recommendation will be nade by jhis Panel to the Chairman
and Registrar of the Grievance Settlement Board to expedite in any
way possible the hearing of the OAG classification grievances.”
M. F. O’Toolo - Memb4r
Dated at Kingston this 26th.~ day of November, 1987. -
- ‘Vice Chariman
w .
F. Taylor - Member