HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-1088.Chalmers et al.90-03-02~?? : ONTARIO EMPL OY~'$ DE LA COURONNE
· CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO
GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, TORONTO, ONTARIO. MSG 1Z8- SUITE 2'/O0 TELEPHONE/T~L~-PHONE
;'80, RUE DUNDAS OUESF, TORONTO, (ONTAR/OJ MSG IZ8 - BUREAU 2100
1088/89
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN:
OPSEU (Chalmers et al)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Health)
Employer
BEFORE: M.B. Keller Vice-Chairperson
J. McManus Member
F. Collict Member
FOR T~E J. Miko
GRIEVOR: Job EvalUation Officer
Ontario Public Service
Employees Union
FOR THE M. Farson
EMPLOYER: Counsel
Fraser & Beatty
Barristers & Solicitors
HEARING: January 25, 1990
-2-
I~IM DECISION
At the outset of the hearing into this matter, counsel for the
grievors sought an adjournment. The request was objected to by the
employer. After hearing the representations of the parties, the
Board granted the adjournment subject to the grievors not seeking
interest should they ultimately be successful. The Board indicated
it would give brief reasons in writing for its decision
The grievors allege that they are not being paid at the proper
salary rate and that is the matter to be determined by the Board
should the parties return before it. This matter, however, has its
genesis in an award issued by a Board chaired by Arbitrator Maureen
Saltman (April 11, 1989) in which the Board established salary
ranges for the Psychometrist Class series. The Saltman board
remained seized in the event difficulties arose in the
implementation of their award. As things turned out, the. issue
before this Board was also raised with the Saltman Board which was
to hear the parties the day following the sitting of this Board.
The request for adjournment, simply put, was that depending on what
happens before the Saltman Board, the matter in front of us may
become moot. The further arguments raised were that by deferring
to the Saltman Board, we ensure no inconsistent result, and that
the Saltman Board is in the best position to interpret its own
award.
3
The employer took the position that it is this Board that is to
determine grievances flowing from the Act and not the Saltman
Board. It is also argued that the Saltman Board may decline
jurisdiction, or may find that it has no jurisdiction to determine
the matter in front of it. The Board was referred to various
decisions indicating the reluctance of the board to grant
adjournments.
After considering the arguments of the parties the Board, as
indicated above, granted the adjournment. We are fully aware of and
strongly endorse previous decisions of this board dealing with
adjournments. They are based on sound policy and administrative
considerations. That is not to say, though, that all requests for
adjournment will be summarily rejected. It is incumbent on the
Various panels of the board to inquire into the reasons for which
the adjournment is sought. When those reasons are compelling, the
request should normally be granted. What is compelling will
obviously turn on the precise reasons given.
In the instant case, there can be no doubt that the issue in front
of this Board, and the one to be heard by the Saltman Board the
next day were essentially the same. It makes practical sense that
a panel, having once dealt with the issue, and having retained its
jurisdiction, should be given the opportunity to first deal with
the matter. It may well be that the Saltman Board declines to deal
with the issue, but that is a matter for them to determine and at
which we are not competent to guess. We were further persuaded to
grant the adjournment because of the proximity in time between this
-4-
hearing and the one before the Saltman Board. Given that this
matter, if we are to hear it will take some time to complete, and
given the condition attached by us to granting the adjournment, no
prejudice is suffered by the employer by our decision. Indeed, if
the Saltman Board does resolve the issue, they might benefit.
Signed in Nepean, this 2nd day of March, 1990
M.B. KELLER, VICE-CHAIRPERSON
/
t
J. McMANUS, MEMBER
F. COLLICT, MEMBER