HomeMy WebLinkAboutCummings 00-04-26 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN'
FANSHAWE COLLEGE
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
CLASSIFICATION GRJEV~CE OF ANN CUMMING~
JANE H DEVUN
SOLE
ARBITRATOR
~CE$ FOR THF COLLEGE',
SHEILA WILSON
ROSANNA STUMPO
CORINNE CAM8PELL
APPEARANCFS FOR THI: UNION;
BAR EMd~A FORD
LOUISE WATT
ANN CUMMINGS
LYNDA GROOM
QP, 5[=U FILF NO ' 99C994
HEARING DATE: APRIL 20, 2000
The grievance, which was filed by Ann Cummings in July, 1999,
invoi~s a claim for reclassification from Support Set,aces Officer I~ at payband 9
to Support Services ~, Atypical at payband 10, retr~-3cffive to,hJly 1, 1998,
At tile o~set o~ t~e I~eadng, Ms. Ford, on behalf of the
requested that I refer Ms. Cummings' grievance to a Board of A,,t)itr'aJon. In
eu~port of this request, she advised that in addition to the 06evo~, sh~ wished to
call as a witness, Jan Novotny, the Program Manager to whom the Grievor
previously reported. Ms. Ford maintained that the Gdevor's case would be
prejucliced if she did not have the opportunity to question Mr. Novotny, Ms.
WIIsort, on behalf of the College, re:IV]sad that she intended to have lhe current
Program Mana~jer, Rosanna Stumpo, give evidence with respect to the duties
and resportsibililies of the Grievor's posi~on. Also present on behalf o{ the
College was Corinne Campbell, who was appointed to the position of Program
Manager subsequent to Mr. Novotny.
In addition, there appeared to be some dispute belween the parties
regarding the time period which ought to be considered in determining the
Grievor's claim and with respect to the matter of retroactivity in lhe event ti'tat the
claim wm'e to be successful. ^lthough Ms Wilson pointed out Nat the c, nll~.clive
agreement specifies that :h~-re shall be no retroactive payment prior to the date of
the grievance, Ms. Ford made some reference to the College's past praclica and
It was also alleged that Mr. Novoa3y had maOe cerlaln representalJons regardh~l
retroacfivity, finally, Ms, Ford advised that although the b~i~s Ixe~ by the
parties indicated that there was agreement on the a3ntent ~ the PD_F., il had
come to the. Union's attention that, in fact, certain d~es had been omitted and,
accordingly, the Union could no longer agree on the contenl of the form.
In my wew, the fact that the~e is some disagreement regarding the
content of the P.D.F. would nat necessarily preclude this matter from being dealt
with in Ihe expedited process. Nevertheless, this process is one which is informal
and inlendod to involve a limited fa(~ual inquiry into Ihe duties and responsibilities
O~ Ihe Grievor's position. For this purpose, evidence is generally given by the
grievof and his or her immediate supervis(x and much o~ the questioning is
conducted by the Arbitrat(x. in this case, however, the Unmn wishes to subpoena
a P~c~jJam Ma~ger to wl'~,, Ihe Grievor prm,'iou~ly ~pu~l~Li who would give
evidence in additio~ to the cun'ent Program Manager who is to be called es a
witness by lhe College. In these circumstances, it would appear that Ihe more
conventional questioning of witnesses by means of examination-in-chi~, cross.
e~mination and re-exammat~on would be appropnate
3
" Mor~, lhere is a dispute between the partfes regarding the
matter of relmac~ity arxl In s~po~ of ItS c~am for retroac~wty beyona me date
of the grleva~, it would apl)ear that the Union intends tn re~y, in part, on
representations alleged to have been made by Mr. Novotny, In my view. the
expedited process is not a~ appropriate forum for lhe disposil~on of an issue of
this sort Accordingly, the Union's request is granted and, pursuant to Article
18.4.4, I direct that Ms. Cummings' grievance be refaced to a Board of
Arbitration. In addition, Ihe Union is directed I~ advise the College of those
a~pects of the P.D.F. with which ii does not agree.
~ EXATED AT TORONTO, Ibis ~day of April. 2.000.