HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-2538.Walters.94-05-05"" :' ~' ' ",' · ONLaRIO EMP£OY£$DEL4 ~OURONNE
· ',.. CROWN EMP~. 0 YEE$ OE L 'ONT4 RIO
GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSlON DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
;80 DUNDAS STREET WES T, SUITE 2 !00, TORONTO, ONTARIO, Mi5G rZ,~ TELEPNONE/T~-L~'PHONE: (416J 3;~6- ! 38B
180. RUE DUNDAS OUEST, EIuREAu ~t00, TORONTO I'ONTAR;'O). MSG 1Z8 FACStMI&E/TELECOPIE : ~4 I6) 326-1396
2538/91, 2539/91, 280/93
IN THE MATTER OF AN ~%R~ITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Walters)
-- ~rievor
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of the Attorney General)
Employer
BEPORE_ S. Stewart Vice-Chairperson
I. Thomson Member
M. O'Toole Member
FOR THE N. Coleman
GRIEVOR Counsel
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson.
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR TH~ J. Zarudny
EMPLOYER Law Officer
Crown Law Office - civil
Ministry of the Attorney General
HEA~IN~ December 20, 1993
4
Disclosure Clerk grievance. Mr. Coleman's 9o$ition i$ that
sufficient particulars with respect =o the DiscIosure Clerk
grievance .have been provided and he.has undertaken to provide
the hearings scheduled for those grievances. InCr. Coleman's
Submission there is no reason to direct ~im to provide
partioulars'with respect to the other g~ievances at this time.
Thi~ ism=e of particulars ih relation to the Disclosure
Clerk grievance was t~e stxbje¢~ o{ some correspondence between
the ~arties, By lettardated D~oember 6, 1993 Fir. coie~an~
advise~ Mr. Zarudny that~
Our Dosi=ion with rempect to this competition.
is that Ms. Walters met all the ~ualifications
for the position. Ms. Walters did not make
70% on her dictaphone test but skill at dictation
app~ar~ to be irrelevant to the Disclosure
Clerk/Xn:erpreter Co-Ordinator position.
In a letter dated December 16, 1993 Mr. Coleman articulated the
Union's 90sl~ion further, as follow~:
The Ministry has been aware of Ms. Walters'
grievance regarding the Disclosure Clerk/
Interpretation Co-ordinator position for some
years, You know that she was denied a~
'interview because she failed the dicta test
and that her position ha= been that she
should at least have 'been granted an. interview,
As my letter of Decm~er 6, 1993 makes clear, an~
as we discussed on December 15, 1993, dicta
~kills are irrelevant to the position in
question. We take the position that Ms. Walters
should have been granted.an interview, and
further, ~ha= she was at least relativel~ equa~
and should have been granted the position on =he
basis of her seniority.
The .iasue with'teePee= to t~is job competition is
simple. Shoul4 Ms. Walters have been granted an
in:erview for this position or did the Ministry
act properly in denying aninterview on t. he Basis
of the dicta test?...
At =he hearl g, Mr2 Coleman further articulate4 the union's
position with respect %o the nature o~ th~ grievan=e. The Union
allege~ a breach of Article 4'.3 of the Collective Agreement. Mr.
Coleman'·inaicated that the Union ~est{0n~d whe~er ~ere wa~ a..
Justification fo= the 70% pa~s mark for th~ dicta test. More
f~4amenta11y, however, ~. Col~am advised that it will ~ the
Union's Dosltion tha~ based on the actual req~r~ents' of the
position the Minis=r~_3ook into account an irrelevant
con~ideration when it denied the. grievor an inta~iew based on
her dicta soote. ~. Coleman fur~r indicated ~%at it is .the
Union's position that the ap~ropriate remed~ is in or, erbar the
grievor Will be granted ~he position. Mr. Zarudny maintains tha~
the grievance has-still not been SUfficiently particularized~
Whether or not sufficient particulars were provided to
the~ployer in advance of the hearing, it is our view'tha~ the
union's =laim. has now been sufficiently particularized so as to
'allow Mr. Zaru4ny to properly prepare the ~mployer'~ ~ase~
AccOrdinglY, we ~ecline hi~ request to grant further particulars
wi~ respect ~o thia grievance. There was an issue as to the
6
~roceeding. Given our oonclusion t/~ere is no nasd to address
With respect to Mr. Zaru~ny's request that we order the
Union to provide' particul=rs with respect to the two other
qrievanoes, we are not persuaded t/~at, such an order w~uld
appropriate at. this point.' ~. Coleman has ~rtaken~ to ~provide
~ar~ioulars with re~pec= ~o t~ese ~i~van=e~ we'll in advance of
a~y hearing ¢o~ve~ ~o deal wi=h'~em._ GiVen'the poaentlal for
t~e =emolution ~f'one ~rievance t° assist in a resolution of'the'
other two qrievances, the ~rovtsion of particulars with. re~pect
=o ~o~e grievances at this. point might well
The final ~a~ter to be dealt with l~
~, Zamuany's ~ubmission in this ~egard was ~s~entially
argument based on th~ merits of =he case. Clearly,
ina~Dropriate for ~e ~oard to make it~ decision on the merits of
%hi~ oame wi=hour providing the Union with t~e ogport~ity to
adduce evidence and make full ar~ent. Accordingly, we are
unabl~ to accep~ ~, ~arudny'~ 9oSltion in this. regard. As well,~
we mote that ~. Zarudny maae brief ~ubmis~ions ~o'the ~ffect
that th~r~ had ~en a change of' grounds ~at should not be
Debitted by the Board in tha~ the remedy of placement, of the
7
will hear submtsgions on this .matter' in final argument and deal
with it in our decision.
The preliminary matters are disposed of in accordance
with the foregoing, Counsel ara to ensure that the incumbents
are given notice with respect to the hearings in which their
positions are in issue. The Board will deal with any~further
issues of pprticulars.and/or party status as these matters may
"subsec/uently arise in these' proc=edings. Th~ hearing will
proceed, as' Scheduled~
Dated at Toronto,' this 5th day of May , 1994.
s.u. stewart, Vice-ChairPers°
M. O'Toole, Member