HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-1170.Hurley&Meszaros.89-05-04 ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO
GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, TORONTO, ONTARIO. M5G 1Z8- SUITE2100 ; TELEPHONE/T~:I..~:f3HONE
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, TORONTO, (ONTARIO) MSG 1Z8. BUREAU2100 (416) 598-0688
1170/88, 1189/88
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION.
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between:
OPSEU (Hurley/Meszaros)
-Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation)
Employer
Before:
N.Y. Dissanayake - Vice-Chairperson
S. Nicholson - Member
D.'Andersen - Member
APPEARING FOR H. Law
THE GRIEVOR: Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
APPEARING FOR M.A. Smeaton
THE EMPLOYER: Manager, Staff Relations
Human Resources Branch
Ministry of Transportation
HEARING: March 28, 1989
-.~_~=
Award
These are grievances filed by Theodore Meszaros and
Pat Hurley claiming thai they have been unjustly
disciplined and/or u'nfairly appraised by letters issued
ko them by %he Employer. The letters pointed ou~
alleged poor work performance on the part of the grievors
and required immediate improvement.
At %he commencement of %he hearing, Counsel for Lhe
Employer raised a preliminary objecsion to the Board's
jurisdiction to hear the grievances~ and took the
~position that the letters were informational only and did
no~ constitute discipline. Nor was the letter an
appraisal as it is commonly understood. Counsel filed
with the Board the Employer's reply issued during
grievance procedure where the grievors were assured 5hat
"the letter is not considered discipline and does not
appear on your personnel file."
Counsel for 5he grievors, submitted that despite
that assurance, there is a concern on the partof'the
grievors uha% the allegations in the leLSers (which are
denied by ~he grievors} may be relied on by the Employer
for purposes of discipline or a work .performance
appraisal in the future.
On questioning by %he Board, Counsel for the
Employer assured the grievors that the Employer will
rely in the future on the contents of letters for any
purpose, including ~isciDline and aDDraisai.
On the basis of that assurance, counsel for the
grievors withdrew the grievances.
The Board consents to the withdrawal o~ the
grievances. It is unfortunate that the parties were
unable to reach this simple understanding' without the
need for going through the grievance procedure and
appearing before this Board. With a minimum of co-
operation, this hearing, and the consequent waste of time
and money, could have been avoided.
Dated this 4th day of .~{ay, 1989 at Hamilton, Ontario
Nimal V. Dissanayake
Vice-Chairperson
S. Nichot$on
Member
D. Andersen
Member