HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-1140.Union.92-09-30 ~.,. ONTARIO EMPLO YES DE LA COURONNE
% CROWN EMP£OYEES DE LtONTARIO
·"--' GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
~80 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORON~-O, ONTARIO. MSG IZ8 TELEPHONE/TE£~PHONE; (4 t6} 326- 1.388
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO [ONTARIO). MSG IZ8 FACSII',4~LE/T~L~COPIE : {416) 326-1395
1140/91
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Union Grievance)
Grievor
- and-
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Correctional Services)
.Employer
BEFORE: S. Stewart Vice-Chairperson W. Rannachan Member
J. Campbell Member
FOR TEE A. Ryder
UNION Counsel
Ryder, Whitaker, Wright & Chapman
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE J. Ravenscroft
EMPLOYER Grievance Officer
Ministry of Correctional Services
HEARING November 8, 1991
DECISION
In a grievance dated March 25, 1991, the Union alleges
that the Employer has violated Article 4.1 of the
Collective Agreement by failing to post two nursing
positions at the Metro East Detention Centre.
There was no real dispute about the relevant facts.
~%e Employer employs eight nurses in classified positions
in its health care department. The Employer also employs
four unclassified registered nurses in the health care
department. The health care unit provides medical services
to the institution's inmates. The nurses carry out
functions such as inmate physicals, mantoux testing, and
work in connection with laboratory and x-ray work. As
well, they are involved in booking outside hospital
+appointments. They also work with the institution's
physicians. The regular operation of the health care unit
requires 384 hours of work performed by registered nurses
per week. Apart from absences resulting from illnesses,
vacation and the like, the eight classified registered
nurses are able to provide 320 hours of work on that
schedule. This leaves a regular shortfall of 64 hours.
The regular shortfall of 64 hours of work as we~l as
time that must be filled for vacation and illness is filled
by the four unclassified nurses. Ms. L. Collins, Health
Care Co-ordinator, testified that she has previously used
agency personel, in addition to one unclassified staff
member, tO fill the nursing requirements 'of the institution
but that this practice was extremely expensive.
Accordingly, the present arrangements whereby four
unclassified nurses, with variable availability, are used
to fill in the hours that are not filled by classified_
staff, she is able to. fulfill the staffing requ.irements of
the institution at a lesser cost than if she used agency
personel. Ms. Collins .testified that she investigated the
possiblility of an additional full-time classified nurse,
however she rejected that option because she would be in a
situation where she would be overstaffed on some occasions
in order to schedule nurses in accordance with the
scheduling.regulations which contain certain restrict%ohs
'with respect to, for example, consecutive days off.. Ms.
Collins also testified that she considered the use of part-
time classified employees, however the staff was not happy
with the work schedule that would result and, accordingly,
this approach to staffing was not pursued.
The issue to be determined in this case is whether the
Employer is obligated to fill the permanent ongoing
shortfall of hours with unclassified staff. As previously
.noted, it is the position of the Union that the use of
unclassified employees for the use of the 64 hour~ of
regular scheduled work in this instance is a violation of
Article 4.1 of Collective Agreement. Article 4.1 of the~
Collective Agreement provides as follows:
When a vacancy occurs in the Classified Service
for a bargaining unit position or a new
classified position is created in the bargaining
unit, it shall be advertised for at least ten
(10) working days prior to th9 established
closing date when advertised within a Ministry,
or it shall be advertised for at least fifteen
(15) working days prior to the established
closing date when advertised service-wide. All
applications will be acknowledged. Where
practicable, notice of vacancies shall be posted
on bulletin boards.
The other relevant provision of the Collective Agreement.
is Article 3.15.1, which provides as follows:
CONVERSION OF UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS TO
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
Effective April 1, 1991, where the same
work has been performed by an employee
in the Unclassified Service for a
period of at least two (2) consecutive
years, and where the ministry has
determined that there is a continuing
need for that work to be performed on a
full time basis, the ministry shall
establish a position within the
Classified Service to perform that
work, and shall ~r~ost a vacancy in
accordance with Article.4 (Posting and -
Filling of Vacancies or New Positions)
The Union's submission is that a vacancy for one or
more classified positions exists in this instance, that the
Employer is obliged to post and fill these positions by
virtue of Article 4.1 of the Collective Agreement, and that
the appointment of unclassified employees to perform this
I4
work is an improper use of the power of appointment
contained in s. 8 of the Public Service Act. The Union
relies on, inter alia, the decision of this Board in
Beresford, (Mitchniek), 1429/86. It is the position of the
Employer that the effect of the March 13, 1989, amendment
to section 6 o_f ReguLation 881/89 of the Public_ Service Act
is that the decision in Beresford can no longer have
application to circumstances such as those in the case at
hand. Ms. Ravenscroft relied on the decision of this Board
in Parry, 237/91 {Low) in support of that conclusion. Mr.
Ryder submits that this decision is wrongly decided, that
it is confl.ict with this Board's previous decision in
Beresford, which was upheld on judicial review, and that
accordingly, .the Board ought not to follow-it.
The relevant statutory provisions are sections 6, 7, 8
and 9 of the Public Service Act and Regulation 881/.89 made
pursuant to that Act. These provisions state as follows.-
6. (1) When a vacancy exists in the Classified
service, the deputy minister of the -
ministry in which the vacancy exists
shall nominate in writing from the
list of eligibles of the Commission
a person to fill the vacancy.
(2) The Commission shall ap.point the person
nominated under subsection (1) to a
position on the probationary staff of the
classified service for not more than
one year at a time.
7. The Commission shall, if reqUested in writing
by the deputy minister, recommend to the
Lieutenant Governor in Council the appointment
of a person on the probationary staff of the
classified service to the regular staff of the
classified service, and the recommendation'
shall be accompanied by the certificate of
qualification and assignment of the Commission.
8.(1) A Minister or any public servant who is
designated in writing for the purpose by
him may appoint for a period of not more
than one year on the first appointment and
for any period on any subsequent
appointment a person to a position in the
unclassified service in any Ministry over
which he presides.
(2) Any appointment made by a designee under
subsection (1) shall be deemed to have been
made by his minister.
9. A person who is appointed to a position in the
public service for a specified period ceases to
be a public servant ak the expiration of that
period.
Regulation 881
6. (1) The unclassified service consists of employees
who are employed under individua~ contracts in
which the terms of employment, are set out and
is divided into,
(a) Group 1, consisting of employees who are
employed,
(i) on a project of a non-recurring kind,
(ii) in a professional or other special capacity,
(iii) on a temporary work assignment arra~lged by the
commission in accordance with its program for
providing temporary help,
(iv) for fewer than fourteen hours per week or fewer
than nine full days in four consecutive weeks
or on an irregular on on-call basis,
~ 6
(v) during their regular school, college
or university vacation period or
under a co-operative educational
training program;
(b) Group 9, consisting of employees who are
employed on a project of a recurring kind,
(i) for fewer than twelve consecutive months and
for fewer than,
(a) 36 1/4 hours per week where the position, if
filled by a civil servant, would be
classified as a position requiring 36 1/4
hours of work per week;
(b) 40 hours per week where the
position, if filled by a civil
servant, would be classified as a
position requiring 40 hours of work
per week,.
(ii) for fewer than eight consecutive consecutive
weeks per year where the contract of the
employee provides that the employee is to work
either 36 1/4 hours per week or 40 hours per
(c) Group 3 consisting of employees appointed on a
seasonal basis for a period of at least eight
consecutive weeks but less than twelve
consecutive months to an annually recurring
position where the contract provides that the
employee is to work either 36 1/4 hours per
week or 40 hours per week;
(d) Group 4 consisting of employees,
(i) who are appointed pursuant to s. 8
of the Act, whether or not the
duties performed by them are, or are
similar to, duties performed by
civil servants, and
(ii) who are not employees that belong to group 1,
2 or 3. O. Reg, 24/86, s. 3(1), part; O.Reg. 1
129/89, s. 1.
In Beresford, supra, which was decided prior to the
amendment to section 6 of Regulation 881 by the addition of
Group 4, the Board found that an unclassified employee
whose contract was not renewed had been improperly
appointed to the unclassified service as the position did
not involve duties that fell within any of the three groups
referred to in section 6 of the Regulation as it existed at
that time. The groups as defined were considered to be
exhaustive and the Board held that an appointment which did
not fall within one of those groups was not ~ontemplated by
section 8 of the Public Service Act and was therefore
improper. There is reference in that decision to the fact
that %he work performed by that grievor was not of a
temporary or non-recurring position.
Ms~. Ravenscroft argued that in the absence of an
existing position in the classified service being vacated,
the determination of whether a vacancy exists in the
classified service, i.e. the creation of a new position in
the classified service, is a matter that falls within the
Employer's exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of s. 18 (1) of
the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act In support of
her position in this regard Ms. Ravenscroft relied on
Klonowski, 16, 17/83, (Teplitsky), Simpson, 694/85,
(Kennedy) and MCS and OP~EU (Union Grievance) 582/90,
(Kennedy)~ In Simpson, the following comments are
contained at p. 13:
·.. %he distinction which separates employees who are
entitled to all the rights and benefits of the
Collective Agreement from those who are limited by
the provisions of Article 3 rests on the status of
the individual employee and not on the nature of the
particular position that is occupied. It was
suggested by the Union that to permit the appointment
of contract employees to permanent positions could
permanently erode the bargaining unit and frustrate
the intent and purpose of the Collective Agreement.
If that is the case, the resolution of such an issue
lies outside the parameters of this grievance. The
Public Service Act creates the distinction between
the classified and unclassified service, and it
creates the distinction not on the basis of the
particular jobs to be performed but rather on the
basis upon which the employment status of ~a particular
employee is created. Pursuant to that Act, a civil .
servant is, by definition, someone whose employmen't
status is created under Section 6 and 7 of that Act.
If the status is created under Section 8, that person
is not a civil servant, irrespective of what job is
being performed.
As Mr. Ryder pointed out, the issue of whether the
existence of a vacancy is established by virtue of an
ongoing permanent body of work, notwithstanding the fact
that the work has been assigned to unclassified employees,
has been specifically dealt with by this Board subsequent
to those decisions, in MCS & OPSEU (Union Grievance) 311/88
(Watters). In that case the facts and the issue were
similar tO the facts and the issue before us. There was
permanent ongoing work in a correctional institutioa that
was assigned to unclassified correctional officers.
Notwithstanding the submission of the emplo~er that the
existence of a new position in the classified service is a
matter for the employer %o determine, the Board concluded
that vacancies existed and that the Employer was obligated
to post positions in the classified service. At p. 13 of
this decision the Board states as follows:
It is now clear that the Grievance Settlement Board
has the authority to review the propriety of-
appointments to the unclassified service. The
awards in Beresford; Milley; Ryder; Wagner; ~
O'Breza; and Rohrer provide support for this
conclusion. An application for judicial review
of the Beresford - Milley decisions was dismissed
by the Ontario Divisional Court in an unreported
decision of Mr. Justice Osler dated December 6,
1988. In each of the aforementioned cases, the
respective panels assessed the nat.ure of the
grievor's employment so as to determine whether
it fell within one of the three (3) groups
established by section 6 of Regulation' 88i. This
Board elects to follow an identical approach.
As is apparent from the foregoing excerpt from the
Board's decision, its rationale was based on the analysis
contained in the Beresford decision and those decisions
that followed it.
We turn first to the provisions of the Collective
Agreement. The introductory phrase of Article 4.1 of the
Collective Agreement states: "When a vacancy occurs in the
Classified Service or [emphasis added] a new classified
position is created in the bargaining unit...". There is a
clear recognition of a distinction between the occurrence
of a vacancy by virtue of an existing position being
vacated and the creation of a new classified position. ~The
issue of whether the Employer can be compelled to create a
new classified position is addressed in the Beresford line
of cases. In Particular, the effect of the Divisional
Court decision with respect to the remedy in the Beresford
case, is that where permanen~t ongoing work is performed by
unclassified employees and the Union alleges that a
classified position ought to be posted is that the Board
may order the posting of a vacancy for a classified
'position, notwithstanding the fact that a new classified
position, as such, was not created by the Employer. This
was the result in MCS & OPSEU (Union Grievance), su__up_~_~.
Clearly, however, that decision is premised on the
Beresford analysis. The case of an alleged vacancy, as in
the case of an individual unclassified employee claiming
that his or her £~sition ought properly to have been a
classified position must be determined on the same basis;
that is, whether the amendment' to Regulation 881 affects
the analysis contained in the Beresford case and renders
its conclusion no longer applicable.
In Parry, ~, the Board rejected the Union's
argument that there is an underlying requirement that an
appointment to the unclassified service must be in relation
to a position that is temporary in nature in order for such
an appointment to have been made in accordance with section
8 of the Public Service Act. At p. 5 of that decision the
Board states that:
The provisions of section 6 (1) (d) defining
Group 4 of the unclassified service is [sic]
unambiguous in that it appears to catch all
employees who do not belong to Groups 1, 2 or 3,
and includes employees whether or not their duties
are similar to those performed by civil servants
(i.e. classified employees) provided that the
appointment was pursuant to section 8 of the Act which
requires that the first appointment be for no more
than one year.
Aside from this restriction with respect to the first
appointment, as well as the restriction contained in
Article 3.15.1 of the Collective Agreement, reproduced
above, the conclusion of the majority in the Parry case is
that the Employer is not restricted in its ability to
appoint to the unclassified service.
The effect of the amendment to the regulation was
considered by another panel of this Board in Lavoie 441/91
(Keller). In that decision, the majority concluded that
Parry was wrongly decided. At p. 13 the Board states as
follows:
...we must conclude that in both Beresford and
Bressette the Board was saying that an appointment
to the unclassified service must be of the type
that distinguishes it from the "normal" "permanent"
positions in the classified service. 'In our view
Group 4 appointments, even though wider in nature
than those in Group 1, 2, or 3' nevertheless are
equally restricted and the addition of the Group
can not, of itself, expand the meaning of Section
6 Of the Act. It can create a new category of
appointments which must continue to be, as stated
in Beresford "distinguished ·.. from the "normal'"
"permanent" position in the classified [service]".
The Board in Bressette stated that the parties
could not in the collective agreement expand the
statutory powers of appointment. The same holds
true for the employer. It 'can not expand the
· statutory powers of appointment indirectly through
the Regulation. The latter must conform to the
Act and not vice-versa. Thus it is our conclusion
that Group 4 does nothing more than expand on the
types of appointments that may be made to the
unclassified service but can not be said to negate
%he previous decisions of the Board that have
defined the scope of s. 8 of the Act. The end
result, then, is that an inquiry must still be
made to determine the nature of the appointment
as that will determine whether it is properly a
s. 8 appointment or not.
The matter was also considered by this Board in
Porter, 428/90, 1640/90 and 1641/90 (Brandt~, S_ingh 531/91,
.(Dissanayake), Justus, 879/91 (Knopf) and Jafri, 933/9~,
· 935/91 (Dissanayake). In Jafri, the conflict in the
Board's jurisprudence following the amendment is fully
addressed. In all of those decisions the Board dealt with
a situation of an individual who alleged that he or she was
improperly appointed to the unclassified service by virtue
of the ongoing work of the position. In all of those cases
the Board took the same approach that was taken in Parry.
The decisions contain somewhat different reasoning, however
the essence of these decisions is that the amendment to s.
6(1) of Regulation 881 which created Group 4 clearly
contemplates the appointment of persons to the unclassified
service notwithstanding the fact that the work performed is
of a permanent, ongoing nature and that the provisions of
s. 8 of the Public Service Act do not restrict the
application of the appointment power to the unclassified
service to "work of an irregular, unusual or temporary
nature" as it is referred to at p. 25 of the Jafri
decis ion.
The analysis contained in these decisions is somewhat
different, however in the Jafri decision,~ commencing at p.
22,~ the Board states as follows:
We agree with Re Lavoie and Re Bressette that the
regulatory power cannot be used to expand the
statutory power of appointment in section 8. However,
the more fundamental question is whether group 4
in fact constitutes an expansion of the statutory
power. In other words, is group 4 inconsistent
with section 8 of the Act?
Neither Bressette nor Lavoie points to any particular
language in section 8 which gives rise to a conclusion
that an appointment under that section is limited to
duties that do not form part of the employer's regular
and on-going needs. Instead, both cases rely on the
now often-quoted statement in Re Beresford which is
quoted in the passage from Re Bressette set out above.
There, Vice-Chairperson Mitchnick observes tha~ the
wording of section 8 of the Act would tend to support
Mr. Ryder's argument that" .. o there must be some-
~ about the _job in its--in--~ial conc-~i~-~ which
distinguishes it from the normal "permanent" position_
an the unclassi-~ied ~ervice." ~emphasis in the
6~ig-~al]
In our respectful opinion the foregoing observation
does not form part of the ratio decidendi in Re
Beresford. This view is supported by the lang--~age
used by the Vice-Chairperson Mitchnick. He makes no
definitive finding in this passage. He simply
~ 14
observes that the wording "tends to support" a
certain interpretation. Then he moves on to dea~
with what he considers to be the "more important"
issue, namely the question of whether the appointment
--fits within one of the groups in' section 6 of the
regulations.
The Board goes on to refer to the conclusions in Beresford,
at p. 16, where that panel states, inter alia:
.... we must find on the evidence that we do
have that the position to which the grievc)r
was appointed was not one which falls within
any of the various situations encompassed by
the 3 Groups set out in the regulations, and
as contemplated by section 8 of the Public
Service Act, We find, therefore, that the
purported appointment of the grievor to the
"unclassified" as oppOsed to the "classified"
service was improper.
The Jafri decision goes on to state at p. 25:
Even if we consider that statement in
question from Beresford to be part of
its ratio, we are not at all convinced
that "the something" that distinguishes
an unclassified appointment alluded to
by the Board is is a reference to the
nature of the duties to be performed by
the appointee. It is of note that what
the Board envisaged was something different
about the job "in its initial conce~otion".
[emphasis in the original]
At best, the observation in Beresford is
v_ague. Beresford, Bressette and Lavoie
do not point to any statutory language -
which may suggest that section 8 appointments
are limihed to work of an irregular, unusual
or temporary nature. As already noted, we
are not able to find any such language. In
the absence of any statutory language to
support such a finding, we cannot agree that
the words "something different about, the job
in its initial inception" is a finding by the
Board that appointments under section 8 cannot
be made for positions performing duties required
to carry on the employer's normal operations.
The use of the words "in its initial conception"
suggests that the Board may have' been merely
alluding to the limitation in section 8 that the
initial appointment to the unclassified service
must be for no longer than one year.
The decision goes on to review some of the decisions that
followed Beresford. At PP- 29-30 the decision concludes as
follows:
We find that there is no restriction in section 8
of the Act that appointments to the unclassified
service are limited to positions that perform duties
that are not a regular or ongoing part of the
employer's operation. To read such a limitation
into section 8 would in our view be to give the
provision a meaning that the language could not
reasonably bear. It follows from that finding that
we must also find that group 4 of the regulation is
not inconsistent or in conflict with section 8 and
must be given effect to.
In Justus, as previously noted, the Board reached the-
same conclusion as in Jafri. At pp. 18-20 of the Justus
#
decision the argument that the amendment of Regulation 881
is beyond the scope of section 8 of the Public Service Act
and that there is ~ conflict between the Beresford decision
and the decisions in Parry and Porter was addressed as
fo 1 lows:
Clearly, the regulations cannot repeal or amend
the enabling legislation. The Porter decision
reviewed these principles and concluded that
the regulatory amendment did not amend Section
8 of the Act because nothing within the Act
limits the duration of appointments or requires
them to be limited in duration. But Porter and
Parry suggested that the Minister's powers had
been expanded. The Union's frustration with
this conclusion is based on the fact that it
seems in conflict with the conclusion in
Beresford that indicated that the language in
Section 8 was significant:
· .. there must be something about t~e
job in its initial inception which
distinguishes it from the normal "permanent"
position in the classified service. (page 14)
yet, that same panel in the Beresford decision
continued its analysis by mentioning that a more
persuasive interpreting factor was that Section 6
of the Regulations set out various fixed term type
of appointments. It is further to be recalled that
when the Divisional Court considered the Beresford/
Miller issue,, it also saw [section 6 of the
Regulation] as an interpretive guide, '"elaborating
upon and perhaps defining 'the unclas~sified service
to which Section 8 refers."
It is therefore clear that the Regulations can aid
in the interpretation of, but not amend Section 8 of
the Act. What then is the effect of the creation of
the Group 4 category? This Board came to recognize
that Groups 1 - 3 all have a temporary nature to
them by virtue of the time and sequential references
throughou= t~e section. But'Group 4 then allows that
anyone not within the Groups could fall within Group
4. This effectively broadens the concept and
eliminates the elements of similarity and/or
the "temporary" nature as the Union wishes us
to accept. It does at the outset by requiring
tl%at the first appointment may only be for
one year, but it specifically allows that
"subsequent" appointments may be for "any
period". This allows the Ministry to appoint people
to [the] unclassified .service for "any period"
whether it falls within the frames of Groups 1
tO 3 or not.
But Section 8 does als0 demand that the appointment
be for a designated "period", It does not allow
for open-ended, unlimited or permanent type of
appointments to the unclassified staff. Otherwise
there would be no purpose to the language "for
ally ~eriod_ on any subsequent appointment" [emphasis
added]. The period of the appointment is a critical
component to the appointment itself.
Thus we see the amendment creating Group 4 may
eliminate the '~temporary" 'nature of appointments
that was recognized in the Beresford/Milley cases
which relied upon Groups 1 to 3 for their interpretive
guide. However we recognize that Section 8
contemplates a fixed period nature to an unclassified
appointment. Therefore,. we conclude that the Group
17
4 category has affected the definition of unclassified
service in Section 8 by removing the temporary and
time constraints contained in Groups 1 to 3
previously. The Minister's powers may well have been
"expanded" but n. ot beyond their legislative bounds if
properly applied. The Group 4 addition does not go
so far as to remove the legislative requirement that
the appointments to the unclassified staff remain
of a periodic nature, albeit that the fixed terms
may now be longer than before...
At this point in the decision the Board expressly departs
from the conclusion i~ Porter that section 8 does not
im~oose a requirement that the appointment be for jobs that
are limited in duration. The Justus panel goes on to
state:
This panel finds, in. Section 8, the requirement that
the "subsequent" appointment be for a "period", but
that the nature of that period is not limited as it
previously wa.s to the time restrictions set out in
Groups 1 through 3.
This interpretation preserves the distinction between
the status of classified and unclassified staff that
is apparent in the nature of the bargain between OPSEU
and the government through their collective agreement
and that was so ably :~inted out by Mr. Ryder in his
argument. It recognizes that permanent ongoing nature
of appointments to the classified or civil service as
distinct from the limited appointements and employment
claims of the unclassified staff. This interpretation
also seems logical in light of the newly negotiated
Article 3.15.1 that allows, effective April 1, 1991
that if the same work is being done in the job for
two years and there remains a continuing need for
that work to be done on a full-time basis, the
position will have to be recognized as within the
classified service and duly posted and filled as
a vacancy within the classified work force. This is a
sensible balancing by the parties of the right o'f the
Employer to make contractually limited, yet long term
unclassified appointments, but checking it with the
requirement to acknowledge a situation where a full-
time permanent position exists if the need for the
work continues beyond two years.
We have quoted from the relevant decisions at some
length, aS the· analysis contained in those decisions_.is
thorough and detailed. We note that the issue raised in
these' cases is one that is presently the subject of a
number of application for judicial review, which will
hopefully resolve the conflict in the Board's
jurisprudence. After considerable reflection, it is our
conclusion that the approach taken in the Justus and Jafri
decisions is correct and we prefer the analysis in those
cases to the approach taken in Lavoie. We adopt the views
of the Justus and Jafri panels with respect to the -the
essence of the decision in Beresford and its progeny.
~;otwithstanding Mr. Ryder's forceful submission, we are not
coavinced that the approach that w.e have taken compels us
to conclude that Beresford and its progeny, including
Bressette, were wrongly decided.
In the case before us, the narrow issue is whether the
~ployer is obligated to have the pe~anent ongoing work of
registered nurses in its health care department perfor.~ed
by classified employees or whether it can have this work
perfo~ned by unclassif[ed employees. For the reasons set
out above, it is our conclusion, that Ithere is nothing in
the provisions of the Collective Agreement or tile
provisions of the Public Service Act that compels the
19
Mmployer to establish a vacancy or vacancies to be filled
by classified staff in this instance. The Employer is, of
course, required to comply with the provisions of s. 8 with
respect to the term of appointment of unclsassified staff,
however there was no evidence that this did not take place.
As well, of course, the Employer is obligated to comply
with the provisions of Article 3.15.1 of the Collective
Agreement. However, this provision was not directly in
issue in this proceeding. For these reasons it is our
conclusion that this grievance
must be dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 30£h day of September, 1992.
$. L. Stewart - Vice-Chairperson
W. Rannachan - Member
J..Campbell - Member