The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-0778.DiMichele et al.91-10-25 ONTARIO EMPLOYÉS DELA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEeS DEL 'ONTARIO 1111 GRIEVANCE CpMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT . BOARD DES GRIEFS lS0 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2700, TORONTO, ONTARIO, MSG lZS TELEPHONEITÉLÉPHONE: (416) 326- 1388 ISO, RUE DUNOAS OUEsT, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO), MSG IZS FACSIMILEITÉŒCOPIE: (416) 326- 1396 778/90, 373/90, 721/90, 748/90, 757/90, 779/90, 780/90, 781/90, 782/90, 783/90, 784/90, 785/90, 786/90, 787/90, 788/90, 789/90, 790/90" 792/90, 793/90, 820/90, 876/90, 926/90, 927/90, 929/90, 930/90, 931/90, 932/90, 937/90, 938/90, 939/90, 940/90 IN THE MATTER OP AN ARBITRATION , Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT . Before ·THE GRIBVANCB SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (DiMichele et all Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community & Social Services) Employer BEFORE: N. Dissanayake Vice-Chairperson P. Klym Member I. Cowan Member FOR THE D. Wright GR:IEVOR counsel Ryder, Whitaker, Wright & Chapman Barristers & Solicitors FOR THB J. Saunders EMPLOYER Counsel HiCkS, Morley, Hamilton, stewart, Storie Barristers & Solicitors HBARING October 10, 1991 I i 2 DECISION . This proceeding ,has to do with a n.umber of gr ievances filed by the individuals named in the att.ached Appendix -AI, relating to the appropriate anniversary date following their reclassification. By a memorandum of settlement dated July 10, 1991, the parties purported to resolve all of the said grievances. The details of the terms of settlement are not relevant for the purposes of this decision. It is sufficient to note that as I per the terms of the settlement, the griE!vors became entitled to certain payments of money as a result of the reinstatement I of their anniversary dates. The problem which gave rise to this proceeding arose when the employer did not promptly make the aforementioned payments by way of implementing the memorandum of settlement. On September 27, 1991, the union requested that a hearing of the Grievance Settlement Board be convened to deal with the employer's delay in making payment. At the hearing, it was common ground that the amounts payable to each employee was not in dispute and further that the employer was obliged to pay interest on the amounts payable, up to the date of actual payment. The Board was advised that the employer had undertaken to make the payments " . 3 no later than November 21st, 1991. Employer counsel informed the board that the cheques were being processed through the regular fortnightly payroll scheme and that some employees may receive the payments" as early as November 6 or 7th. However, he reiterated that all employees will be paid up by November 21st. Counsel for the union submitted that the delay has been extreme. He sought a direction from the Board that the payments due under the memorandum of settlement be made within one week or in the alternative, a direction from the Board for payment by November 21, 1991- Counsel for the employer submitted that while the delay was regrettable, the reality is that the,government is a big bureaucracy and it takes time to process cheques, which are not part of the routine payroll. He further submitted that since full interest is payable, there is no demonstrable loss to the employees. Counsel agreed that the Board should make a direction for payment, but submitted that the deadline for payment should be November 21, 1991. ,We wish to emphasise that the parties did not address the issue of this Board1s jurisdiction to make the direction sought. When the issue of jurisdiction was raised by· the ,¡ Board, both counsel merely advised that they were agreed that the Board should make a direction for payment and that their only dispute was thetimeframe for payment. ' 4 In the particular circum~:.>tances , the Board directed orally at the hearing that the enlployei ma.ke the payments due, no later than November 21, 1991. That direction is hereby confirmed. Dated this 25th day of October 1991 at H.amilton, Ontario .~~~ N. Dlssanayake Vice-chairperson f/!:;ym t!r- Member f ().^, ,/ / l / ~ I t"r- ':",- .... \~ _"+-<-"'_~'=-':_ I. Cowan Member 5 Appendix 'AI Grievor Grievance Settlement Board File No; 1- Bowman, Judith 748/90 2. Richardson, Sandra 748/90 3. McMillan, Dave 786/90 4. Pace, Elizabeth 787/90 5. pigeon, M.C. 788/90 6. virji, Samim 789/90 7. Clipperton, Nancy 757/90 8. Farquharson 931/90 9. Martin 929/90 10. McQuaid 932/90 11- Paziuk 926/90 12. Sherlock-Hubbard 930/90 13. smith 876/90 14. watkins 927/90 15. Ritza, Diane 748/90 16. Stewart, Anne 748/90 17. Bell, Susan 781/90 18. Chambers, Catherine 782/90 19. Chidlow, Shelly 780/90 20 '. Colasante, Teresa 790/90 21- DeSaudo, Lisa 779/90 820/90 I I 6 22. DiMichele, Christina 778/90 939/90 23. Fletcher, Wendy 721/90 24. Franchino, Lucy 793/90 938/90 25. Gilroy, Mary 373/90 26. Glenen, Mark 792/90 27. Goodman, Judy 784/90 28. Hennessey, Natalie 783/90 940/90 29. John, Marilyn 785/90 937/90 !