HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-0828.Philip et al. 91-03-04 IN THE MATTF~R OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
THE ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
- and -
THE CROWN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO
(MANAGEMENT BOARD OF CABINET)
WITH RESPECT TO
THE OFFICE ADMINISTRATION GROUP GRIEVANCES
MARTIN TEPLiTSK¥, Q.C. Chairman
CHRIS G. PALIARE Union Nominee
W. K. WINKLER, Q.C. Board Nominee
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the Union: Howard Law
On behalf of the Board: Michael Milich
This is the secbnd Award of the Special Panel of the
Grievance Settlement Board charged with the responsibility of
resolving "OAG" classification grievances. As we indicated in
our first Award, these grievances are so ~numerous as to require a
"special approach" and the appointment of a "special" panel to
adjudicate these grievances.
The "special" approach entails considerable pre-hearing
attendances to encourage narrowing of issues, agreeing on facts
and ensuring full and fair production of relevant documents. In
addition, the parties exchanged briefs which were both very
specific as to the particular grievance and more general in
outlining issues of a repetitive nature. The Union also filed
reply briefs. The Board is grateful to the parties for these
briefs which were carefully prepared, comprehensive and very
useful. At the hearing, the written briefs were supplemented by
oral evidence and oral argument.
After the most careful consideration, the Board has
concluded that it would not be helpful to provide reasons for the
decisions reached in specific cases. There is a considerable
risk that extensive reasons would either supplant the "class
standards" as the primary source of determining these issues, or,
at least, given the imprecision of all language however carefully
drafted, provide a further basis of controversy.
The following are the results of the specific
grievances:
1. Debbie Murphy - GSB ~2196/86
· - The grievance is·~· al'lowed. The appropriate
classification is 7. The factor of skill should be increased to
level 3.
2. Cheryl Philip - GSB #0828/89
The grievance is allowed to the extent that the
technical skill factor should be at the block 2 level.
Otherwise, the grievance is dismissed.
3. Alikhan et al (Damant) - GSB ~2675/86
The grievance is allowed. The classification is
increased to level 9. The factor of judgment should be
increased.
4. Allen et al - GSB #2200~86
This grievance is dismissed.
5. Ibbotson & Normoyle (Normoyle) - GSB #2319/86
This grievance is allowed to the extent that the factor
of judgment should be increased one level but in all other
respects the grievance is dismissed.
6. Boyles and Coles - GSB #1999/87
This grievance is allowed to the extent of technical
skills being recognized but in all other respects the grievance
is dismissed,
7. Tanner and Skinner (Tanner) - GSB #968/87
This grievance is allowed. The classification is
increased to level 8. The factor of knowledge should be
increased.
8. Marv Humphries - GSB #466/87
· .~' This grievance is allowed. The classification is
increased to level 11. The factor of accountability should be
increased.
9. Johnston et al (Courtroom Clerks) - GSB #2519/86 This grievance is dismissed.
i0. Bastarache et al (Carole Ne¥in) - GSB #110/87 I
This grievance is allowed. The classification is
increased to level 4. The factor of judgment should be
increased.
11. Knight/Atkins (Kniqht) - GSB #520/89
The grievance is allowed. The classification is
increased to level 6. The factor of judgment should be
increased.
Any retroactive amounts including interest should be
paid within sixty (60) days of the date of this Award.
DATED the '4th day of March, 1991.