HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdam Group 01-11-13 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO PUBLIC ,SERVICE EMPLOYEES' UNION, LOCAL 245
(hereinafter called the Union)
- and -
SHERIDAN COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY
(hereinafter called the College)
- and -
CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCES OF MESICH, TAYLOR AND THOMPSON
(hereinafter called the Grievors)
ARBITRATOR
PROFESSOR lAN A. HUNTER
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE UNION: Ms. Nurrna Pennington-Drabble
FOR THE COLLEGE: Ms. Erin Holl
AN ARBITRATION HEARING WAS HELD IN OAKVILLE, ONTARIO
ON NOVEMBER 14, 2001
1
AWARD
The three Grievors are classified as Clerk General D and work as registrarial clerks
in the Registrar's Office at Sheridan College.
The grievances were originally scheduled for arbitration on December 10, 2000. On
December 5, 2000 1 was advised by Ms. Pennington-Drabble that one of the Grievors had
a ruptured appendix and that the parties had agreed to adjourn the scheduled December
10, 2000 hearing date.
On November 27, 2000 Sheridan College wrote to me proposing that this case was
inappropriate for expedited arbitration; the College requested a tri-partite Board under
Article 18.4.4 of the Support Staff Collective Agreement.
The Union replied (December 6, 2000) opposing this motion.
I offered to hold a hearing to hear submissions on this issue, but both parties
indicated their desire to deal with it by written submission.
Having received, and considered, the written submissions, I issued a ruling (January
4, 2001) declining to refer the three grievances to a full Board, on the basis that the
College's submissions had not satisfied me that the grievances could not be dealt with
through the expedited process. I wrote: "1 remained concerned about the lack of
agreement on the content of the P.D.F. [but] I do not consider that factor decisive."
Accordingly, I declined to refer the grievances to a tri-partite Board "... at this stage of the
proceedings".
2
The parties next agreed to November 14, 2001 for a hearing.
On October 21,2001 the College sent me an arbitration Award issued by Arbitrator
Brent involving these same parties dealing with the grievance of E. Paton.
Ms. Paton is a Registration Services Clerk in the Registrar's Office. She was
classified as Clerk General D, Payband 8. The Union sought reclassification as Clerk
General Atypical, Payband 10. There was no agreement on the P.D.F. in that case.
Precisely the same factors were in dispute, with identical ratings submitted by each party,
as in the three grievances before me.
The College asserted that the Paton grievance and the grievances before me are
"virtually identical".
On November 5, 2001 Ms. Pennington-Drabble wrote to me submitting (a) that I
should not consider the Brent Award (in the Paton case) because it was submitted beyond
the time limit specified in Article 18.4.3.4. She also objected on the grounds that the Union
was not simultaneously provided with a copy of the Award.
She also denied that the positions in question were "virtually identical" with the
position held by the three Grievors in this case.
At the outset of the arbitration hearing on November 14, 2001 I ruled that Article
18.4.3.4 refers to "written submissions", and should be interpreted as applying to the
written briefs which each party is required to submit to the arbitrator in advance of hearing.
However, a prior arbitration Award is part of the arguably relevant arbitral jurisprudence.
3
I held that prior arbitration decisions need not be submitted to the arbitrator in advance of
the hearing. Therefore, I intended to consider the Paton Award.
I then drew the parties' attention to a directive to expedited arbitrators issued by the
Joint Classification Committee on August 16, 1995. That directive states in part: "the
J.C.C. also believes that if authorities are needed to support either pady's case, then the
grievance should be referred to an arbitration board". I invited the parties to make
submissions on that issue. Both parties then caucused to consider their positions. When
they returned to the hearing room, each party requested that I adjourn the proceedings and
refer these grievances to a full arbitration board pursuant to Article 18.4.4 of the Collective
Agreement.
I agreed to do so, and this Award embodies that decision.
The grievances of Mesich (OOD316), Taylor (OOD317) and Thompson (OOD326)
are hereby referred to a classification arbitration board pursuant to Article 18.4.4 of the
Collective Agreement.
Dated at the City of London this //,¢~, day of ~¢,./~Jc~¢--4z.~,C'~ , 2001.
sor lan A. Hunter
rbitrator