Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-1208.Young.89-04-19 ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L 'ONTA RIO GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, TORONTO, ONTARIO, M5G 1Z8- SUITE 2100 TELEPHONE/T£L~PHON~ '180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, TORONTO, (ONTARIO) M5G 1Z$ - BUREAU 2100 (4t6) 598-0688 1208/88 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT BEFORE THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: OPSEU (Young) Srlevor - ~nd - 1 ~ The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Cor~'ectional Services) Employer Before: J.W. Samuels Vice-Chairperson ~ :_ I. Thomson Member M. O'Toole Member Appearance for R.P. Stephenson Grlevor: Counsel ~ Gowllng & Henderson Barristers & Solicitors Appearance for G. Lee Employer: , Senior Staff Relatlons Officer Staff Relations Branch Ministry of Correctional Services Hearing: April 6, 1989 At the opening of our hearing, the Board was informed that the Employer wanted an adjournment because counsel for the Employer was not in attendance. Counsel's car had broken down out of the province two days earlier and she was waiting for its repair. Counsel for the Union agreed to the request.. The Board did not. In our view, the Employer and its counsel had ample opportunity to prepare the case and to be at the hearing in spite of the car troubles. This Board is faced with a mountain of grievances. The services of the Board are provided to the parties. The parties do not pay for this. It is critical that parties and their counsel make every reasonable effort to attend at scheduled hearings. The request for an adjournment in this case was an abuse of this Board's slender resources. Furthermore, the parties suggested that there might be a problem of third-party representation because the grievance involves indirectly a challenge to a job competition. It was suggested that perhaps the incumbent should have been given notice of our proceedings and the right to participate. But the way that the grievance is framed, as we will explain in a moment, involves no attack whatsoever on the position of the incumbent who was successful in the competition. Therefore, the incumbent has no interest in these proceedings and it was no impediment to our work that the incumbent may not have been served notice of the proceedings. We told the parties that we would proceed to hear and determine the grievance. As will be seen when we conclude, this ruling was not in fact prejudicial to the Employer in any way. It turned out that Mr. Lee was able to put the Employer's case fully without the assistance of the absent counsel. In August 19.88, the Employer posted a vacant temporary position of Driver/Utility Officer. Part of the job of this officer is to drive a large truck which is so registered that it requires a driver with a Class D licence. 3 Thus, quite naturally, the posting said that the applicant would need a Class D licence. The grievor doesn't have this licence. For this reason, he wasn't interviewed for the position. He grieves that he should have been granted an interview, and he requests that the Employer provide him with the opportunity at its expense to receive adequate training to pass the test for the Class D licence, and tlxen he claims that he should be given the next Driver/Utility Officer position without competition for a one year term. This grievance is entirely without merit. There is nothing whatsoever in the collective agreement which gives the grievor the right to be trained for his Class D licence at the Employer's expense. The grievor says that the vehicle in question is "over-registered" because it could be registered at a lower gross vehicle weight, in which case he could drive it with the licence he has. But the Employer can use the vehicle for any carriage it wishes, and if it carries heavy loads that require a higher registered gross vehicle weight, the Employer is perfectly entitled to register the vehicle at the heavier weight. In fact, we learned that the vehicle went over a Ministry of Transportation weigh scale when it was registered at a lower weight, and the Transportation officials informed the driver from Correctional Services that the vehicle had to be registered at a heavier weight. Counsel for the grievor suggests that the Employer is putting an impediment in the grievor's way by requiring a licence which he does not have. And the only cure for this is for the Employer to provide the grievor with the requisite training so that the grievor will be qualified for the position posted. This argument has no merit whatsoever. When the Employer determines that there is a vacant position, the Employer sets the job requirements and the qualifications necessary. Perhaps there is some limitation on the Employer that prevents the Employer from requiring · qualifications which are simply not necessary. But in our case, the job 4 required a driver for the heavy track, and this driver needed a Class D licence. For these reasons, the grievance is dismissed. Done at London, Ontario, this 19th day of ^pri~ ,1989. '~g,~amuels, Vice-Chairperson ~son, Member M. O'Toole, Member