Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-0518.Ghiandoni.96-08-16"h ONTARIO CROWNEMPLOYEES II GRIEVANCEIISETTLEMENT BOARD. EMPLOYESDELACOURONNE DEL'ONTARIO COMMISSIONDE REGLEMENT D-ESGRIEFS -----~~ 180DUNDASSTREETWEST,SUITE2100,TORONTOONM5G1Z8 180,RUEDUNDASOUEST,BUREAU2100,TORONTO(ON)M5G1Z8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE:(416)32ff~1J8iJ FACSIMILE/TELECOPIE:(416)326-1396 GSB#518/94,519/94 OPSEU#94A828,94A829 INTHEMATTEROFANARBITRATION Under THECROWNEMPLOYEESCOLLECTIVEBARGAININGACT Before . THEGRIEVANCESETTLEMENTBOARD BETWEEN OPSEU(Ghiandoni) Grievor -and.. TheCrowninRightofontario (MinistryoftheSolicitorGeneral& .CorrectionalServices) Employer .BEFORE L.Mikus Vice-Chairpersoft \ FORTHE GRIEVOR FORTHE EMPLOYER HEARING A.Ryder Counsel Ryder,Wright,Blair&Doyle Barristers&Solicitors J.Benedict Manager,GrievanceAdministration&Negotiation MinistryoftheSolicitorGeneral& CorrectionalServices May25,1995 September22,1995 Thegrievor,GregGhiandoni,wasemployedasanunclassifiedProbationandParoleOfficerinthe Manitowaningoffice,asatelliteoftheSudburyParoleServicesBoard.HewashiiedinMayof1991 andhiscontractswererenewedeverysixmonthsuntil1994.Hislastcontractwasnotrenewedand, asaresult,thegrievorcontendsthathewasdisciplinedanddismissedwithoutjustcauseinthat"the employerabusedtheinvestigationproceduresoftheMinistry'sharassmentpolicyinanattemptto intimidatemefromexercisingmyrightsandtodefamemeinviolationofArticlesA1.1andA1.2 ofthecollectiveagreement".Thegrievorasksthathebereinstatedtohisformerposition, compensatedwithinterestforalllost wages,benefitsandcreditsandthatanyreferencetotheunjust dismissalberemovedfromhispersonnelrecords.He.alsoasksforadeclarationthattheArea ManageroftheProbationandParoleOfficeandtheRegionalPersonnel-Administratoracted inappropriatelyandforanorderthattheEmployerceaseharassing him. TheUniontakesthepositionthatthefailuretorenewthegrievor'scontractwasbasedonthefactthat thegrievorsoughtthep~otection ofhisUnionwithrespecttohiscomplaintregardingajobposting. ItalsotookthepositionthattheBoardhasthejurisdictiontointerferewiththenon-renewalofan unclassifiedemployee'scontractifitcanbeshownthat-thedecisionwasmadeinbadfaith.The Employertakesthepositionthatthegrievor'scontractwasnotrenewedpursuanttoSections8and 9ofthePublicServiceActandthereforethisBoardhasnojurisdictiontointerferewiththe \Employer'sdecision. 1 , \- I -2 THEFACTS ThegrievorbeganworkingfortheSudburyProbationandParoleofficeiriMayof1988asa ProbationandParoleOfficer1.Hiscontractatthetimewasforfourmonths.Whenthatcontract expiredinSeptemberof1988,itwasnotrenewed.Thegrievorwashiredagainasanunclassified ParoleOfficerin-Mayof1991anduntilJanuaryof1992workedintheEspanolaoffice.InJanuary of1992hetranSferredtotheManitowaningofficeonManitoulinIsland.BetweenMayof1991and February21,1994,thegrievorwasContinuouslyemployedonsix-monthcontractsas'anunclassified ParoleOfficer..Duringthattimehisperformanceappraisalsweregoodandtherewerenocomplaints abouthiswork.In1993and1994he~eceived alettercommendinghimforperfectattendance. InMarchof1994thegrievor'spositionwaspostedasaclassifiedProbationandParoleOfficer positionpursuanttothecollectiveagreement.Thegrievorintendedtoapplyforthatpositionbut beforehecoulddoso,thepostingwasrescindedandthepositionwassubsequentlyawardedasa lateraltransfertoanotheremployee.Thegrievortestifiedthathewasangryandupsetaboutthe lateraltransferandspoketohisUnionrepresentative,Mr.Larcher.TheymetwithMr.KenGraham, PerSonnelManager,whoadvisedhimthattheywereallowingthelateraltransferoncompassionate. groundsinaccordancewiththecollectiveagreement.ThegrievoradvisedMr.Grahamthathewould behearingfromhimandretum~d toworkonManitoulinIsland.Shortlythereafterthegri~vor receivedaletterdatedApril12,1994,fromMr.GaryBate,AreaManager,whichstatedasfollows: Asdiscussedwithyouatourmeeting ofApril11,1994,andtelephoneconversationofApril12,yourcontractwill notberenewedcontingentuponthearrivaldateofthep.p.a.transferringtotheManitowaningofficeonalateral transfer. WealsodiscussedthatacontractpositionasaP.P.a.wouldbeavailabletoyouinKirklandLakeshouldyoudecide toaccept.ThecommencementdatewouldbeMay16andyourcontractattheManitowaningofficewouldbe extendedtothatdate:Ifyouarenotprepared toacceptth~KirklandLakecontractposition,yourcontractatthe \ .' 3 ManitowaningofficewillexpireJuly1,1994.IwouldappreciatearesponsenolaterthanAprilIS,1994.Should youhaveanyquestions,pleasecontactme. OnApril15,"1994,Mr.BatecalledthegrievoradvisinghimthathehadhiscontractforKirkland Lake.Thegrievoradvisedhimthathewouldbehearingfromhiminthef\1ture.Thegrievorthen called Mr.PeterSlee,artUnionrepresentative,whoadvisedhimtowritealettersettingouthis concernsofthelateraltransfer.ThegrievorwrotealetterdatedApril18,1994,toMr.Batewhich statedasfollows: IhavereceivedyourofferandsoughtadvicefromtheUnionregardingthismatterandlegitimacyofalateral transfertoManitowaning. I willrespondtoyourofferofacontractualpositionforaProbationandParoleOfficerinKirkland Lakeupon clarificationfromUnionrepresentative. OnWednesday,April20,1994,thegrievorreceivedamessageonhisansweringmachineadvising himthatMr.BatewantedtoseehimintheRegionalOfficeonthefollQwingFriday.OnFriday,that is April22,1994,Mr.Graham,Mr.Bate,Mr.Larch~r andthegrievormet.Atthecommencement ofthemeetingthegrievorreferredtoMr.Bate'sletterofApril12,1994,butwasadvisedthatthe issueforthatmeetingwasnot"thelateraltransferortheofferofthepositioninKirklandLake.The ". grievorwasadvisedthattheEmployerhadreceivedsomeinformationregardingthegrievor's backgroundandwantedtostartaninformalinvestigationbasedonthatinformation.Theyaskedif thegrievorhadbeenangrywhenthepersonhewasreplacinghadbeentransferredasaclassified employeetoSudbury.Thegrievordeniedthathewasangry overthattransfer.Thegrievorwasthen .""advisedthattheemployerhadreceivedsomecomplaintsregardinghisperformanceasaparole officer.Therewerenospecificcomplaintscitedatthemeetingandthegrievoradvisedthemthathe wantedtheallegationsinwriting.Atthatpoint Mr.LarchersuggestedthattheseaIIegations amountedtoharassmentand advisedthegrievornottoansweranymore questions.Thegrievorwas \ 4 suspendedwithpay.dependingontheoutcomeoftheinvestigation.Asaresult,he·filedthefirst grievanceallegingunjustdisciplineandharassment. OnApril27,1994,thegrievorreceivedaletterfromMr.Batethatstatedasfollows: ThisletterisinreferencetoyourunclassifiedcontractstatuswiththeManitowaningProbationandParoleOffice. Pleasebeadvisedthatyourunclassifiedcontractwillnotberenewed.EffeCtiveApril24,1994,yourunclassified contractexpired,but,pertheEmployinentStandardsAct,youwillreceive8weekssalaryinlieuofnotice. PleasecontacttheundersignednolaterthanoneweekuponieceiptOfthisregisteredlettertoarrangetopickup yourpersonalbelongmgsattheManitowaningProbationandParoleOfficeandalsoatthattimetoreturnMinistry propertysuchaskeys,casenotes,etc. ThegrievortestifiedthataftertheApril.22,1994,meetingnomentionwasmadeoftheofferin KirklandLake.Thegrievorwasaskedwhetherhewouldhaveacceptedthatofferandhisresponse that"itwouldhavebeenatoughdecisiontomake". Incross-examination,thegrievoracknowledgedthathehadameetingwithMr.B~te'inDecember... of1993regardingtheposting'ofhisposition.HeacknowledgedthatMr.Batehadexplainedthe lateraltransferfileandthatitwaspossiblethegrievorwouldnotbeawardedthejob.He .acknowledgedthatatthetimehewasupsetwiththeprocess.Healsoconcededthathehadspoken toMr.LarcheraboutthelateraltransferbeforetheinitialpostingofMarch29,1994. rncross-examinationthegrievorrecalled"ameetingonApril11,1994,withMr.Bateatwhichtime thepositionintheKirklandLakeofficewasdiscussed.HeagreedthatMr.Batehadaskedfora responsebyApril15,1994,withrespecttothatpositionandagreedthathisresponsewasnot forwardeduntilApril 18,1994.Thegrievoralsoacknowledgedthathiscontractwastohaveexpired \ \ " 5 onApril1?,1994,but~tedthat itwasnotunusualforpeopletoworkwiih~uta contractandthat,. inthepast,hisowncontractshadbeenrenewedatthelastminute. Mr.KenGraham,theAreaPersonnelAdministratorfortheSudburyoffice,hasbeenwiththe Ministryfor24years.Hisareaofresponsibilityatthetimeofthegrievanceincludedtheterritory fromBarrietoCochrane.Itwashisresponsibilitytomonitorthecontractsforunclassifiedemployees andtointerviewapplicationsforjobcompetitions.Hepreparedtheoriginalpostingandtestified thathehadamendedittwpdayslaterbecauseit hadbeendetermined.thattherewerenotthree potenti~lcandidates withinthesearc4area.Theoriginalpostinglimitedtheareaofsearchto employeesoftheMinistryofSolicitorGeneralandCorrectionalServicesintheSudbury,Espanola andManitoulinarea.TheamendedpostingrestrictedtheapplicantstoemployeesoftheOntario PublicServiceandtheNorthernRegion.ItwashisevidencethatthevacancyintheManitowaning officearoseas.theresultofasuccessfullateraltransfertotheSudburyofficebyanotherparole officerintheManitowaningoffice.AccordingtoarticleA.4ofthecollectiveagreement,classified .employeescanrequestalateraltransfer.Beforetheposting,Mr.Grahamreviewedthelateral transferlist..Henotedthattherewasoneapplicationfromaparoleofficerwhowasonaleaveof absencefromTorontoandwasworkingtemporarilyinSudbury.Hedeterminedthatpersonwas qualifiedandcontactedherwithrespecttothetransfer.Shedec~edand,asaresult,thejobwas posted.ShortlythereafterMr.GrahamreceivedacallfromMs.PatriciaGeroux,aParoleand ProbationOfficer,whoaskedwhyherapplicationfortransferhadnotbeenconsidered. Mr..Graham checkedthelist again anddiscoveredthatshehadputanapplicationinfortheSudburyarea.Itwas herunderstandingthatrequestincludedtheEspanolaandManitowaningoffices.WhenMr.Graham \ 6 hadreviewedthelistheunderstoodthatherapplicationwasonlyfortheSudburyoffice.Sheadvised himthatshewantedto.movetotheareaforcompassionatereasonsbecauseherparents,wholived inthearea,wereelderlyandshewantedtomoveclosertothem:Subsequentlyshewasofferedthe positionintheMSnitowaningofficeandwastotakeoverthepositiononJuly24,1994. Mr. GrahamwasreferredtotheAppointmenttoUnclassifiedServicecontractforthegrievorwhich statedtheeffectivedatewasApril25,1994,andtheexpirydateJune17,199.4.Heexplainedthat thecontractwasdatedinsuchamannertocomplytotheEmploymentStandardsActwhich requiredthatemployeesbegiveneigh1weeksnoticeiftheirq:>ntractwasnottoberenewed. Mr.Grahamwasa~ked aboutthemeetingofApril22,1994.Hestated'thatthepurposeofthe .meetingwastodealwithanumberofcomplaintstheyhadreceivedaboutthegrievor.Itwashis evidencethatMr.Bateaskedthegrievortwoorthreequestionsaboutthesecomplaintsatwhich pointthegrievorbecameveryagitated.Afterashortcaucusthegrievorand Mr.Larchercamein, statedthattheyrefusedtoansweranymorequestionsandcalledthemeetingacharade.Mr.Bate toldthegrievorthatheintendedtoinvestigatethesecomplaintsandadvisedhim nottoreporttohis officeinManitowaning.Themeetinglastedabouttenortwelveminutes. Mr.Grahamtestifiedthathehadameetingwiththegrievorpriortothatmeetingsometimeduring thefirstweekofApriLAtthattimethegrievoraskedhimaboutthevacancyandthelateraltransfer list.Hewas.agitatedwhenMr.Grahamtriedtoexplainthatclassifiedemployeeshadthefirstright toavacancy.Thegrievorfeltthatthepositionwashis,thathehadbeendoing-itforalongtimeand \ 7 wasupsetaboutthefactthatclassifiedstaffhadmorerightstothepositionthanhedid. Incross-:examinationMr.Grahamconcededthatthecomplaintsfromstaffaccruedafterthegrievor hadbeentoseehisUnion.Whenhewasaskedwhetherheknew.thatthegrievorwasobjectingto thelateraltransferbeforethemeetingofApril22,1994,Mr.Grahamresponded'~likely." Mr.GaryBateistheAreaManagerfortheSudburyProbationandParoleOffice.Heisresponsible for24staffmemberswhichincludes15.paroleandprobationofficersandeightsupportstaffHisarea ofresponsi~ilityincludes Sudbury,EspanolaandManitowaning.Hetestifiedthathevisitedeach .officeonce.a.monthanddiscussed'concernswithrespect·tocases,checkedthefilesand communicatedWithstaffon,aregularbasis.Itwashisevidencethathespokewiththegrievorin Decemberof1993withrespecttofillingofaparoleofficervacancythathadoccurredasaresultof aretirement.Mr.Batetoldhimaboutthelateraltransferrequestfromaprobationofficerandfelt obligedtoadvisethegrievorastotheprocess.Heexplainedthatthepositionwouldfirstgotothe .redeploymentofswplusstaff.Ifitclearedthatstage,theywouldlooktothelateraltransferlistand, ifthere werenolateraltransferrequestsonfile,itwouldbepostedforcompetition.Mr.Batestated thatthegrievorwasupsetandMr.Batesuggestedthatifhedisagre~dwith whathehadbeentold .heshouldcheckwithhisUnion. Mr.Batetestifiedthatuptothatpointintime,hisgeneralassessmentofthegrievorasaprobation officer had beensatisfactOlY.Thegrievormetalltherequirementsofthejob,hisreportsweredone ontimeandhesawnoproblemswithhiswork.Hedescribedhisworkingrelationshipwiththe \ 8 grievorascordial. As·aresultofthesecondlateraltransferrequestMr.Bateaskedthegrievortocometohisofficefor ameetingonApril·ll,1994.Headvisedhimthattheyhadacceptedthelateraltransferrequestand thethatpostingwouldbewithdrawn.Hetold himthat the~ewas acontractpositioninKirklandLake andofferedittohim.Hestatedthatthegrievorwasextremelyupsetatthetime.Mr.Batestated thathedidnotputatimelimitontheKirklandLakeofferbutremindedthegrievorthathiscontract wastoexpireshortly. Mr.Batetestifiedthathedidnothear~omthe grievorbyApril15,1994,sohetelephonedhim at homeandaskedhimifhehadcometoa decision.Hetoldhim thattherewassomeurgencyin respondingbecausehiscontractwastoexpireintwodays.Thegrievortoldhimthatareply would beforthcoming.Mr.Bateexplainedthatthegrievor'scontractwasextendedas·aresultofthat conversation.'ThegiievorhadnotdecidedwhethertotaketheKirklan,dLakeofferandMr.Bate.' extendedhiscontracttogivehi~timetoconsiderit. ,. Mr.BategaveevidenceaboutthemeetingofApril22,1994.Hestatedthatthemeetingcameabout becausehehadreceivedanumberofcomplaintsfromemployees.inhisarea.Asaresultofthose "complaintshefeltthatheneededtomeetwiththegrievorandhisUnionrepresentative.Mr.Bate personallycontactedMr.LarcherandsetupameetingattheofficeinSudbury.Mr.Bateexplained atthemeetingthathehadbecomeawareofinformationandthathewantedtoaskthegrievor questionsaboutthatinformation.Bythetimehehadaskedtwoofhisthreequestions,thegrievor \ 9 becameveryanimated,~edthe meetingacharadeandrefusedtoansweranymorequestions..The grievoraskedhimto'puthiscomplaintsinwritingandleftthemeeting.Becausehedidnotknow whetherthegrievorintendedtoaccepttheKirklandLakeoffer,Mr.BatesenthimtheApril27,1994, letteradvisinghimthathiscontracthadexpiredandwouldnotberenewed.WhenMr.Batewas .askedwhyhedecidednottorenewthegrievor'scontract,herespondedthatitwasprincipally' "becausetheyhadfilledhispositionwithalateraltransferandhiscontracthadexpired.Healsostated thatitwasbecausehehadreceivednoanswertotheKirklandLakeofferandbecauseoftheevents oftheweekofApril18-22,1994,inclusive. In cross-examinationMr.Bateagreedthatthegrievorhadworkedwithoutproblemandthatthere wasnothinginhisfileorhisappraisalssuggestingtherehadbeencomplaints.abouthim.Healso .agreedthathemetwithall ofthestaffattheManitowaningofficeonceamonthandthatpriorto April18,1994,noonehadapproachedhimwithanycomplaintsaboutthegrievor.Mr.Batestated thathehadspokentoaco-workerofthegrievorandthatthereappearedtobealotoftension betweenthem,althoughheconcededthattensiondidnotinterferewiththegrievor'scareerprospects. Healsoagreedincross-examinationthathehadreceivednocomplaintsconcerningthegrievorfrom anyofthejudgesorcourtofficialsthegrievorworkedwithonaregularbasis..Mr.Batestatedthat asofApril15,1994,heintendedtorenewthegrievor'scontract··asaParoleandProbationOfficer and,infact,extendedhiscontractforaweekinordertogivehimtimetomakethatdecision.Mr. Batealsoconcededthathewasawareasofthatdatethatthegrievorobjectedtotheawardingofthe Manitowaningpositionasalateraltransfer.HedeniedbeingawareofthefactthattheUnion .objectedtothattransferaswell. \ 10 Withspecificreferencetothecomplaint,Mr.Batetestifiedthatnoformalcomplainthadbeenmade tohimaboutthegrievorbuthehadreceivedverbalstatementshefeltrequiredmoreinvestigation. Thosecomplaintscamefromtwo·employeesintheManitowaningoffice.Mr.Batetestified.thathe didnotinitiatethecalls;nordidhepromptthem.ThecomplaintscametohisattentionbetweenApril 18andApril22,1994;Asaresultofthosecomplaints,heformulatedquestionsheintendedtoask thegrievoratthemeeting.Oneofthemconcernedastatementheallegedlymadetoaco-worker' aboutthepersonwhogottheposting,anotheronedealtwithhowhefelthehadbeentreated.He agreedthatthosequestionsdidnotrelatetothegrievor'sperformancesomuchastohisreactionto thejobcompetition. ARGUMENT TheUniontookthepositionthatthereweretwoissuesforthisBoardtodetermine.Thefirstis whetheritiswithinthejurisdictionoftheBoardtoreviewanemployer'sdecisionnottorenewan unclassifiedemployee'scontractifthatdecisionwasmadeinbadfaith.Thesecondissueiswhether badfaithdid,infact,playaroleinthisEmployer'sdecisionnottorenewthegrievor'scontract.It baseditsargumentonthefactthatthedecisionwasmotivatedinwholeorinpartbythefactthatthe grievorhadsoughtandobtainedtheUnion'sintervention: .ItwassubmittedthatthefirstissuewasaddressedinReMinistryofCorrectionalServicesand OPSEU(Jafri)(May23,1995)GSB#933/91(Dissanayake).TheUniontookthepositionthatthe jurisprudencerespectingthatissueisfoundatpage 29: Therefore,ifthe Employeractedin"badfaith"inthe senseofretaliatingagainstthegrievorforseekingassistance fromtheUnion,bynotrenewinghiscontract,thatexerciseoftheEmployer'sauthorityhas theeffectof \' 11 un.Clenniningthegrievor'srighttogrieve.Asincases suchasRePitirri,ReMerson,andReDunlop,thefactual baksherewhichgaveriSetothe underminingofCollectiveagreementrights,namelytheseekingofassistancefrom tMUnion,arosewhilethegrievorwasstillanEmployee.Asinthose cases,heretheEIfiploy~made acoriscious dehisionnot torenewthegrievor'scontractThatdecisionwasalsomadewhilethegrievorwasstillanEmployee.' n{eUnionallegesthatifnotforthebadfaith,thedecisionwouldhavebeenmade~o.rene~.Ifthathappened,the grievor'scontractwouldhavebeeneXtendedforafurtherperiodandhewouldnothaveceasedtobeapublic. setvantunderSection9ofthePublicServiceAct.Therefore,theEmployer'sbadfaithdecision(ifproved)will beldirectlylinkedtotheunderminingoftheCollectiveagreementrights..'.. F~r thosereasons,followingthereasoninginthepreviousdecisionssightedabove,theBoardfindsthatthese gqevancesarearbitrable. Theunilntookthe'positionthatb~d faithwasevidentinthefacts.Firstly,management's e"PlanatiLforitsdecisionnottorenewthegrievor'scontractisnotcredible.Thatdecisionwas .describedbyMr.Bate"asadirectresultofnotbeingadvisedofthegrievor'sacceptanceofthe KirklandlLakeposition,andbecausetheemploymentdateofApril24wasreached."As aresult,the '1."...'.. letterofApril 27,1994,wassent.However,theUnionargued,thegrievor'semploymentcontract didnoteJireonApril24,1994,asclaimed.RatheritexpiredonJune17,1994.Theexpirydate ofthecoJtractdoesnotexplaintheneedtoissuetheletterofApril27,1994.,The'claimthatthe Jetterhad jObedeliveredeightweekspriortotheexpiryonJune17,1994,lackscredibilitybecause itwaswrittenontheunderstandingthatthecontractexpiredonApril24,1994.Theletterisclear thattheei~tweek'ssalary,inlieuofnotice,wasnot,asMr.Bateclaimed,design~d tocoincidewith .thelastei~t weeksofthecontract.Indeed,if~hatwas thecase,'theeight'weekperiodwouldhaveI. hadtocommenceonApril22,1994. Mr.Batestatedthatanotherreasonforthedecisionnottorenewthegrievor'scontractwasthe eventswmchtranspiredintheperiodofApril18toApril22"1994,concerningthealleged COmPlaintlbythegrievor'sco-workers.TheUnionsubmittedthatthisadditionalreasonalsolacks credibiliJ.Noneofthe"complainingemployees"werecalledtogiveevidence.Thereisno I I 12 corroboratingevidenceo~anykindto.supporttheallegation.Moreimportantly,itdefiesbeliefthat" p"eoplewhohadworkedwiththegrievorforS0meyearswithoutcomplaint,wouldsuddenlyand withinthespaceoffourdays,voicecomplaintsthatweresofundamentalthattheyresultedinthe terminationofthegrievor'semployment.Furthermore,thefactthattheseallegationsoccurred virtuallycontemporaneouslywithMr.Slee'sconversationwithMr.Graham,createsasuspicionwhich demandseitheranexpbination,or,attheveryleast,somecorroboratingevidencetosupportthe existenceofthecomplaints.Inotherwords,wheretheEmployerreliesonstaffcomplaintstojustifY theterminationofemploymentandwherethetimingofthecomplaintsissuspicious,tosaytheleast, theEmployeroughttoprovide corro~orating evidencebeforeitasksthisBoardtoacceptthose allegations. TheUnionarguedthatbetweenApril15andApril21,1994,managementunderwentafundamental changeofattitudetowardthegrievor.Theonlyinterveningeventwhichwasclearlyestablishedin theevidencewasthefactthatthegrievorsoughtandobtainedtheinterventionoftheUnion. Accordingly,intheabsenceofanyevidencetosupportmanagement's8llegationsofemployee complaints,itwassubmittedthatitisreasonabletoconcludethatmanagement'sdecisionwasa reactiontotheinterventionbytheUnionandthefactthatthegrievorhadsoughttheUruon'shelp. Withrespecttotheissueofremedy,theUnionsubmittedthattheremedyoughttoplacethegrievor inthepositionhewouldhavebeeninbutforthedecisiontakenagainsthiminbadfaith.Inthe circumstancesofthiscase,butforthebaddecision,theEmployerintendedtoofferthegrievora contractatKirklandLake.Accordingly,theUnionaskedthattheEmployerbedirectedtoofferthe -~--~-'-----------_._--------------- \ 13 grievoracontract-ofequaldurationasaProbationandParoleOfficertogetherwithcompensation forlostincome,withinterest,untilthenewcontractcommences.Itwasalsosubmittedthatthe arrearsincompensationoughttotakeintoaccountthetaximplicationsofalumpsumpayment.In supportofitspositiontheUnionreferredtheBoardtoReTheMinistryofHealthandOPSEU (Ohrt)(May6,1990)GSB#250/88(Dissanayake),ReThe·MinistryofCorrectionalServicesand ,'OPSEU(BrianMillerandClairMacPhail)(March2~1987),GSB#531/82and#532/82 (Verity)andReMinistryofCitizenshipand~PSEU(Grinius)(July24,1995),GSB#1495/89, #1357/90,#1409/90,#1567/90and#1568/90(Fisher). TheMinistrytookthepositionthattheEmployer'sdecisionnottorenewanunclassifiedemployee's contractisconsistentwithSections8and9ofthePublicServiceActandis,therefore,inarbitrable. AvacancywascreatedforaclassifiedProbationandParoleOfficerintheManitowaningoffice.The grievorwasadvisedasearlyasDecemberof1992,howsuchaclassifiedvacancywouldbefilled.' Thegrievordoesnotseemtohavetakenthisinformationwellandbecameupset.Hewasadvised byMr.BatetospeakwithhisUnionrepresentative. TheEmployersubmittedthatbyoperationofArticle4ofthecollectiveagreementandtheMinistry's applicablepolicy,theclassifiedpositionwasfilledbylateraltransferforcompassionatereasons.The successfulcandidatewastotakeuphernewpositionintheManitowaningofficeinJulyof1994.The grievorwasofferedemploymentasanunclassifiedProbationOfficerinKirklandLakeandhis contractwasextendedsothathecouldmakeadecisionregardingthatoffer.Heneverresponded. Thegrievor'sunclassifiedappointmentorcontractwasextendedforeightweekssolelytomeetthe \ 14 requirementsoftheEmploymentStandardsAct.TheEmployertookthe·positionthatthere·is nothingintheevidenceofMr.BateorMr.Grahamthatwouldsuggestbadfaithordiscrimination intheirdecisionnottorenewthegrievor'sunclassifiedcontract. InsupportofitspositionwithrespecttotherightoftheEmployertodecidenottorenewacontract, theEmployerreliedonthecaseofReMinistryofCorrectionalServicesandOPSEU (Humeniuk)(December5,1985),GSB#614/84(Springate)whereinitwasstated: Thereisnothinginthecollectiveagreementorintheapplicablestatuteswhichguaranteescontractemployeesthe righttobereappointed,orwhich,inanyway,restrictsmanagementwhenitmakesadecisionastowhichcontract employeesarenottoberenewed.Accordingly,thenonrenewalofagrievor'scontract,whichwasnottaintedby badfaithonthepartoftheEmployer,didnotinvolveabreachofeithertheCollectiveagreementorarelevant statute. ItalsoreferredtheBoardtothecaseofReMinistryoftheAttorneyGeneralandOPSEU(Milks) (March11,1993),GSB#1000/92(Low),ReMinistryofCorrectionalServicesandOPSEU (HoustonandCampbell)(November18,1993),GSB#1799/90and#1803/90(Verity). DECISION DealingfirstwiththeissueofthejurisdictionoftheBoard,itisclearthattheJafridecisionstands forthepropositionthat ifan employer'sdecisionnottorenewthecontractofanunclassified employeewasmadeforreasonswhichresultedintheunderminingorabridgementofanyrightofan employeeunderthecollectiveagreement,theemployer'sactionsarereviewablebyaBoardof Arbitration.Iftheemployeractedinsuchamanner,theJafriBoardequateditto".badfaith."That panel.statedthatiftheemployerwasretaliatingagainstthegrievorforseekingassistancefromthe Unionbynotrenewinghiscontract,theexerciseoftheemployer'sauthoritywouldhavetheaffect \ 15 ofunderminingthegrievor'sright"togrieve.Ifthe Unioncanprovethattheemployer'sdecisionin theinstantcasewasmadeinbadfaith,itwouldbeadirectlinktotheunderniiningofthegrievor's collectiveagreementrights.Onthosegrounds,thisBoardhasthejurisdictiontoreviewthereasons fortheEmployer'sdecisionnottorenewthegrievor'scontract. Theissuethenbecomeswhether,inthecircumstancesofthiscase,theEmployer'sdecisionnotto renewthegrievor'scontractwasbasedonthefactthathecontactedtheUnionwithrespecttohis .righttoaclassifiedposition. Someofthefactsareindisputable.Thegrievorhashadnumeroussixmonthcontractswiththe Employerdatingbackto1988.Thegrievorhashadtwoevaluationsinthattime,neitherofwhich couldbecharacterisedasnegative:Thegrievorhasneverhadanycomplaintsmadeagainsthimby co-workersorotherpeoplehedealswithintheperformanceofhisduties.Thegrievor'spositionwas postedasaylassifiedpositionandwasgrantedtoanotheremployeeonthebasisofthelateraltransfer :requirementsunderthecollectiveagreement.ThegrievorwasofferedapositioninKirklandLake aslateasApril15,1994.SometimebetweenApril18andApril22,1994,theEmployerreceived complaintsfromthegrievor'sco-workers. Asaresultofthosecomplaintsandbecausethegrievor didnotrespondtotheKirklandLakeoffer,theEmployerdecidednoUorenewhiscontract. Ascanbeseenfromthosefacts,untilApril15,1994,theEmployerwasquitepreparedtooffer anothercontractpositiontothegrievor.Therewasnosuggestionofbadfaithregardingthe Employer'sdecisiontoawardthefulltimeclassifiedpositiontoanotheremploye~.However,the. 16 sainecannotbesaidwithrespecttotheEmployer'streatmentofthegrievor.Sometimebetween April15andApril22,1994,theEmployerchangeditsmindaboutthegrievor'spositi~nin Kirkland Lake.TheEmployersuggesteditwasbecausethegrievorhadnotrespondedtothatofferbythedate .'indicated.Althoughthatmaybeoneofthereasonsforthedecisionnottorenewthegrievor's contract,lcannotignorethefactthattheEmployerreliedonallegedcomplaintsmadebyco-workers .inarrivingatadecisionnottorenewthegrievor'scontract.Thosecomplaintswereneverplaced beforethisBoard:"NowitnesseswerecalledtorepeatthemdirectlybeforetheBoardorthegrievor. I amunabletoexplainwhytheEmployerwouldplacesomuchcredenceinthosecomplaintsgiven theirvaguenessandtiming.InmyviewtheonlyreasontheEmployerreliedon'thosealleged complaintswastobuttressitsdecisionnottorenewthegrievor'scontract.WhileIacceptthat,in part,thedecisionnottorenewthegrievor'scontractwasmotivatedbyhisfailuretorespondtothe KirklandLakeoffer,nevertheless,Iam'constrainedtofindthatitwasalsomotivatedinsomepart .bythegrievorsdecisiontoincludetheUnioninhisobjectiontothelateraltransfer.Thereissimply .nootherreasontoexplaintheEmployerschangeofposition. HavingfoundthattheEmployerdid,inpart,relyonthegrievor'srequestthatthel!nionintervene. onhisbehalf,theissuethenbecomeswhat,if any,remedythegrievorshould·begranted.It is. \acceptedthatinreinstatingagrievor,BoardsofArbitrationattempttoplacethegrievor,toth~eXtent ,possible,inthepositionhe/shewouldhavebeenin butfortheEmployer'sactions.Inmost casesthat isnotadifficultassignment.Giventherecentdevelopmentsinthepublicsector,specificallythe actualandproposedreductionofstaffinalllevelsofthepublicservice,itismoredifficultinthe circumstancesofthiscase.Nevertheless,whatisreasonablebasedontheevidencebeforemeisthe \ 17 conclusionthat,butforthebadfaithconsiderationandinaccordancewiththeusualpractice,the- grievorwouldhavehadhiscontractextendedinAprilof1994for~othersix months.Whetherhe wouldhavehadfurtherextensionsatt.heendofthatcontractwoulddependonnumerousfactors, includingtheEmployer'soperationalrequirementsatthetime.Wecanonlyspeculateastowhat ,. thosefactorsmight:be.·However,theBoardissatisfiedthatbutforthebadfaithoftheEmployer, thegrievor'scontractwouldhavebeenrenewedforanothersixmonths. Thegrievorthenisentitledtoadeclarationthathiscontractwasnotrenewed,inpart,becauseofthe exerciseofhisrightsunderthecollect~veagreement.Idirectthepartiestoattempttoagreeonthe appropriateremedytoaddressthisbreach. Ifthe partiesareunabletoagreeand,giventhe extraordinaryrecenteventsinthe publicsector,Iwouldaskthepartiestomakesubnnssionstothis Boardastotheappropriateremedyin thesecircumstances.Iwill remainseizedofthismatter pending'notificationbythepartiesoftheresultsoftheirendeavours. Signedthis!tthdayofAugust,1996. ",-LorettaMikus,Vice-Chair