HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-1070.Bubanovic.90-03-05 ON.R fO EMPLOYES DE ~ COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE
GRIEVANCE CgMMISSlON DE
SE'rrLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD . DES GRIEFS
?$0 DUNDAS STREET WESL TORONTO. ONTARIO. MSG 7Z8 - SUITE 2100 TELEPHONE/T~L~PHONE
1~0, RUE OUNDAS OUES~ TORONTO. (ON~Rt~ MSG lZ~ - BUREAU 2100 (416j Sg$-O~8
1070/89
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN:
OPSEU (Bubanovic)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community & Social Services)
Employer
BEFORE: W. Low Vice-Chairperson
F. Taylor Member
D. Clark Member
FOR THE J. Paul
GRIEVOR: Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service
.. Employees Union
FOR THE W. Emerson
EMPLOYER: Employee Relations Officer
Ministry of Community &
Social Services
HEARING: January 15, 1990
DECISION
The Grievor, Ms. Bubanovic, a Food Service Worker 1,
grieves that she has not been paid a custodial responsibility
allowance which is set out at Appendix 8 of the Collective
Agreement.
This Board is of the unanimous view that this grievance
is to be dismissed.
Ms. Bubanovic is an unclassified employee. Pursuant to
Article 3.1, the only terms of the Collective Agreement that
apply to an unclassified employee are those stipulated in
Article 3. Article 3.15 lists the articles of the Collective
Agreement, other than Article 3, that apply to unclassified
staff, n~ely Articles 1, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 25,
27,. 32, 36 and 85. Article 5.9, the article which incorporates
Appendix 8 into the Collective Agreement, does not appear as one
of the articles stipulated in Article 3.15 as applying to
unclassified employees. Applying the maxim exDressio unius est
exclusio alterius, we come to the conclusion interpreting the
Collective Agreement that the draftsmen of the Agreement did not
intend to incorporate Appendix S as one of the provisions of the
Collective Agreement applicable to unclassified employees. We
are referred to the decision of Arbitrator Devlin in the matter
of Jackson and this Ministry, a grievance arising out of an
assertion to the benefit of Article 4. In my view, the cases are
indistinguishable in principle and I follow the Jackson decision
2
in concluding that on a proper construction of the Collective
Agreement, Appendix 8 does not apply to unclassified employees.
DATED AT TORONTO this 5th day of March, 1990.
~. TAYLOR ~. Member
D.M. CLARK Member