HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-2593.Gordon.94-02-14:~',i ~ ~ ' ' ' ~ '" ONTABtO EMPL. OY~$DE LA GOUF(ONNE
.... .'., . .,.... ~':~ , CF'OWN EMPI-OYF~$ DE L 'ONTAt~IO
180 DUNDAS S't"REET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. M5G lZ8 TELEPHONEIT~L~-Pt'iONE: (4 ~6) 326-135B
t$O, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO [ONTAI~IO). M5G IZ8 FACSII',."]fLE/TL~L~COPIEBi (415) 326-- 1396
2593/91
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under.
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN :
OPSBU (Gordon)
Grievor
- an4 -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Transportation)
Employer
BEFORE: W. Kaplan
Vice-Chairperson
M. Lyons Member
D. Halpert Member
FOR THE G. Gordon
GRIEVOR
FOR THE J. Monger
.~NION Counsel
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE Mi Failes
EMPLOYER Counsel
Filion, Wakely & Thorup
Barristers & Solicitors
HEARING January 14, 1994
Introduction
By a grievance dated December 3, 1991, Grant Gordon, a seasonal employee
of the Ministry of Transportation in Kingston, grieves a violation of the
Collective Agreement. The case proceeded to a hearing 'in Toronto, at which
time counsel for the parties 'and the grievor made .submissions.
The facts of this matter are not complicated. The grievor is a seasonal
snow plow operator, and generally works out of the Barriefield Patrol near
Kingston. In 1991-1992, he was not recalled to the Barriefield Patrol. His
duties were assigned to a full-time employee of the Ontario Public Service.
The grievor was, however, recalled to another patrol near Kingston.
Union counsel advised the Board that the union did not take issue with this
assignment, nor did it believe, on these facts, that any provision of the
Collective Agreement had been infringed. Accordingly, union counsel asked
that the grievance be dismissed.
In employer counsel's submission, as there was no dispute between the
parties, and, as the grievor did not have the right, in these circumstances,
to proceed with the case, the grievance should be dismissed. Counsel
referred to Harrison/Leach 2551/91 (Watters) in support of this
proposition.
Mr. Gordon was then invited to address this jurisdictional issue, and 'he
made some submissions with respect to his case. Suffice it to say that
these submissions did not pertain in any respect to the Board's jurisdiction
., to 'hear a case where the parties were agreed that there was no difference
between them.
Decision
In Harrison/Leach the Board stated that: ·
...individuals, in contrast to parties, do not possess a
separate right to arbitrate 'under either the collective
agreement or CECBA. It naturally follows, therefore,
that the present grievors cannot in this proceeding insist
on the arbitration of their Complaints absent the
concurrence of the Union. If these employees believe
they have not been fairly treated by their bargaining
agent, they have a.statutory right of .remedy in section
30 of CECBA (at 6).
In the instant case, the parties are agreed that there has been no violation
of the Collective Agreement. The parties are also agreed that the grievance
should be dismissed. For the reasons set forward in Harrison/Leach, and
the cases referred to in that award, we find that the grievor has no right to
proceed before us with his claim, and, as requested by. the parties, we
direct that his grievance be dismissed.
DATED at Toronto this Z~th day of February, 1994.
William Kaplan
· Vic~Chairpe~on '
~. Lyons/---
Member ,~ '
Member