HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-0897.Cabeza et al.89-05-17 DecisionONTARlO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO
GRIEVANCE CQMMISSION DE
SE'TTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, TORONTO, ONTARIO. M5G 128 - SUITE2100
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, TORONTO, (ONTARIO) M5G 128 - BUREAU2700
Between:
Before :
TEL EPHONE/TÉLÉPHONE
897/87
(416) 598-0688
IN THE HATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
TEE CROWN EHPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEHENT BOARD
OPSEU (Cabeza et al)
Grievor - and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Labour)
Employer
P.M. Epstein - Vice-Chairperson
J. Anderson - Member
E. Orsini - Member
APPEARING FOR R.R. Wells
THE GRIEVOR: Counsel
Gowling & Henderson
Barristers C Solicitors
APPEARING FOR F. Fitzpatrick THE EHPLOYER: Counsel
Hicks, Morley, Hamilton, Stewart, Storie
Barristers & Solicitors
C
HEARING: December 9, 1988
Subsequent to the issuing of the Reasons in this matter,
Counsel for Cabeza advised in writing that he wished to make
further submission with respect to the retroactivity date for the
Grievor, Cabeza. The Employer was given an opportunity to respond
to those submissions and decided to make no further submissions.
For the reasons given in the original decision, the Board
found that April
15, 1986, would be a reasonable re-classification
date for the Grievor, Mr. Milosavljevic, It now appears, from
Exhibit "8" filed at the hearing, that Mr. Cabeza falls into the
same category as the Grievor, Mr. Milosavljevic. The Board, at
first instance, was not aware
of that fact because the Board did
not have before it the Cabeza memorandum that apparently was
similar to the memorandum written by Mr. Milosavl jevic, dated March
7, 1986. It appears clear that there was in fact a similar memo
written by Cabeza delivered on that same date and accordingly, for
those reasons, we believe that April 15, 1986, is also a reasonable
re-classification date for the Grievor, Cabeza,
In this unusual situation, the Board wishes to make it
clear that it did not consider itself "functus" since the Board
retained jurisdiction to deal with matters arising out of its
reasons originally delivered and accordingly, the Board
considers
that it has jurisdiction to amend its previous reasons in
accordance with the Supplementary Reasons.
DATED AT TORONTO, ONTARIO this 17th day of May,
.
P.M. Epstein, Vice-Chairperson
E. Orsini, Member