HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 99-03-25 I
IN THE MA-FI-ER OF a union grievance
AND IN THE MATTER OF the arbitration of the grievance
BETWEEN:
Humber College of Applied Science and Technology
- ~,nd-
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
PLACE AND DATES OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario, November 18 and December 21,
1998, and March 10.1999
BOARD OF ARBITRATION:
Jacqueline Campbell
Sherril Murray
Stanley Schiff, chairman
APPEARANCES FOR THE EMPLOYER:
Hyacinth James, senior human resources consultant
Mile Komlen
Ross Dunsmore, counsel
APPEARANCES FOR THE UNION:
Robert Mills, chief steward
George Richards, counsel
AWARD AND REASONS ON
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
reasons of the Supreme Courts judges in Town (197612
-2-
-3-
-4-
Settlement Desired flows immediately: the College should give the work to employees in
the unit and the union should get the resulting dues. The claim In the Statement of
Grievance and what the Settlement Desired says are matters having to do with the
union's collection of Interests: mey complain about the College's alleged violation of the
scope of agreement coverage and the damage this does to the union's income. They
are different from the burden of the 1994 grievance.
The result is that no plea of res judicata or abuse of the arbitration process can
bar our hearing the grievance before us on the merits.
What we have just said helps answer the College's second objection.
Article 32.10 bars a union grievance which "include[s] any matter upon which an
employee would be personally entitled to grieve" unless various stringent conditions are
satisfied. The award of November 10th, 1997 discusses how the conditions work. Look-
ing only at the grievance form before us in the light of what we have just said, we see no
such "matter". The grievance, as set out on the form, is therefore not barred by art
32.10. And that is so whether or not art. 32.01 acts to prohibit grievances from the listed
employees, thus circumventing the bar to a union grievance under art. 32.10. Article
32.01 limits individual grievances to employees who have "been employed continuously
for at least the preceding four months"; the union says that all these employees have
worked under term contracts of less than four rnonths~
However, the remedy the union added in the opening having to do with seniority
lists is different: ordinarilly "an employee would be personally entitled to grieve" an al-
leged violation there. If we then applied what the November 10th, 1997 award said
about the conditions, the union's claim for this remedy would be barred by art. 32.10.
See again Cambrian College, at 8. But if any of the employees involved in this griev-
ance are subject to what art. 32.01 says because they have not been employed long
enough, art. 32.10 will not apply to impose the bar. We agree with the recent award in
Seneca College and OPSEU, Union grievance (1998). at 27-28 (MacDowell, chairman),
so holding.
That leaves the objection that promissory estoppel bars the grievance. The ver-
sion of promissory estoppel meant here at feast requires me College to have relied on
about. That the merits of the complaint did not get an airing in arbiition before the ne-
of this Board.
majority
page award foundation
The the
are
of the grievance before us the
the
effective the date of
the the to bring proper
it
different
line
is that the us
of