HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-0117.Goreski.90-02-01 ONTARs. O ;MPLOY~S DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO
GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
780 DUNDAS STREET WEST, TORONTO, ONTARIO. MSG ;Z$- SUITE 2100 TELEPNONE/T~-'L~_'pHONE
faO, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, TORONTO, (ONTARIO) MSG IZ8 - BUREAU 2100 (416t 598-0688
0117/88
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BA/{GAINING ACT
Before
TEE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between:
OPSEU (Goreski)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Revenue)
Employer
Before:
D.H. Kates Vice-Chairperson
J. Solberg Member
D. Montrose Member
For the Grievor: D. wright Counsel
Ryder, Whitaker, Wright and Chapman
Barristers & Solicitors
For the Employer: R. Atkinson
Counsel
Hicks Morley Hamilton
Stewart Storie
Barristers & Solicitors
Bearing: October 3, 1989
Decision
At the outset of the hearing the employer's counsel
requested an adjournment of the proceedings which reguest was
opposed by the trade union.
After entertaining the parties' representations the Board '
granted the adjournment in order to enable counsel to prepare
written representation on the two legal issues pertaining to the
Board's jurisdiction to entertain Mr. Goreski's complaint.
It was understood that those written representations would
address specifically the Board's yet to be released decision in
Be~esford. It is anticipated that that decision will deml with
the "major" jurisdictional issue that the parties are to argue
before this Board. Accordin~lyt Counsel are directed in their
written representations to address the issue of whether or not
the result in Beresford (omce released) is "manifestly wrong".
In consultation with the Board the parties agreed to adhere
to a fixed schedule for making their written representations.
For purposes of the record, the employer advised that it was
no longer asserting that Mr. Goreski properly fell within any of
the three groups or categories defining an "unclassified"
temporary employee under Section 6(1) of The Regulations to
Public Servioe Act,
Accordingly, the pro~eed£ngs were adjourned.
Dahed this tst :b~¥ of February, 1990. [/
David Il. Kates, Vice-Chairperson
J. Solberg, Member
D. ~ontrose, Member
Addendum from: Janet Soiberg
Union Nominee
Re: OPSEU and Ministry of Revenue
Grievance of Goreski 0117/88
I obviously concur in this award since it accurately represents
an agreement of the parties to adjourn the proceedings.
Having said that, I'm not at all sure why this agreement became
cause for an interim decision, although granting an adjournment
seems fairly innocuous, in fact, it merely adds another statistic
to the box score of continuations and adjournments which have
plagued the debate on this matter.