HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-1111.Molnar.89-11-14 ON~ RIO EMPLOYES DE ~ COURONNE
· . CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO
'~ ' GRIEVANCE CQMMISSION DE
SE3-rLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WES~ TORONTO, ON.RIO..M5G 1Z8. SUt~ 2100 TELEPHONE/T~LJPHONE
~8~ RUE DUNDAS OUES~ TORONTO, (ON~RI~ M5G 1Z8-8UR~U 2100 ~1§) 5~.0~8
1111/88 __
IN TME MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD*
Between:
OPSEU (Molnar) '
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Transportation)
. Employer _
Before:
R.J. Delisle Vice-Chairperson
J. Solberg Member
H. Knight Member
For the Grievor: A. Ryder
Counsel
Ryder,. whitaker, 'Wright ~nd Chapman ~
Barristers & Solicitors
F. campbell
Counsel
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Barristers & Solicitors
R. Field
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
For the Employer: P. Young
Counsel
winkler, Filion & wakely
Barristers & Solicitors
~earin~: March 14, 1989
AWARD
The grievor complains that he has been "discriminated
against by my immediate field supervisor", and seeks a declaration
that his "employer's actions were incorrect and discriminatory.''
The specifics of grievor's complaint arise out of his
supervisor's direction to him to He responsible for picking up a
van and survey equipment and transporting the same along with the
rest of the survey crew to the job site~ Grievor's counsel argued
that this was punishment amounting to discipline and arbitrable.
The Ministry's position is that the .matter was simply a work
assignment, not discipline, and therefore nog arbitrable.
Grievor's counsel undertook to lead evidence to satisfy us that
this was discipline and so satisfy the Ministry's preliminary
objection.
The grievor testified. ~He noted that it was the Survey
Party Chief's responsibility to direct who will pick up the van
necessary to the survey task. On this occasion the grievor was
directed to perform this task. He described the route necessary
for him to follow from his residence to'the yard where the van was
stored and from there to the job' site. He also described the
compensation that he would receive'and how that compensation had
recently, just prior to .his assignment,~ changed from cash for
travel time to lieu time. The grievor noted that he was unhappy
with this change. In,cross-examination he was asked if he believed
'that the Party Chief was "picking on him" and he said no.
On the evidence presented there is nothing to suggest
that the grievor was being punished or disciplined. On the facts
this was simply a work assignment with which the grievor disagreed.
This disagreement is not arbitrable.
Dated at Kingston this !'4th day of .N0vembe~., 1989.
R. J. Delisle, Vice-Chairperson
"I dissent" (Without written reason)
J. Solberg, Member
\ \
.,. (
I'-I. Kn±ght,