HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-0237.Hartley.92-09-17 -ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPL 0 YEE$ DE L'ON,TA RIO
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. M5G IZ8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE: (4 16) 326- 1388
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO)· M5G IZ8 FACSIMILE/T~L~COPlE : (416) 326- 1396
237/92
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMpLoYEES COLLECTIVE'BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Hartley)
Grie~or
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Health)
-Employer
BEFORE: J. Devlin~ Vice-Chairperson
FOR THE A. Lee
GRIEVOR Grievance Officer
Ontario'Public Service EmPolyees Union'
FOR THE B. Doherty
EMPLOYER Staff Relations officer
Management Boa~rd of Cabinet
HEARING September 9., 1992
The parties agreed to deal with this matter in
accordance with the expedited arbitration procedure set out in
Article 27.18 of the collective agreement.
The facts indicate that in the spring of 1991, the
Grievor, who was working as a Psychiatric Nursing Assistant
("PNA,), was the succesSful applicant for a developmental
opportunity as a Plumber Apprentice. The Union claimed that the
Grievor was entitled to retain the rate of a PNA for the duration
of the apprenticeship program. In support of its claim, the
Union relied on a statement by Joyce Ward., a member of
management, at ~an ERC meeting in October of 1991 to the effect
that classified staff undergoing apprentice training continue to
receive the salary of their former positions whereas unclassified
staff receive government'-approved rates. Based on this
statement, the Union contended that the salary treatment accorded
the Grievor was discriminatory.
The Employer.maintained, however, that the statement
made-by Ms. Ward was in error and that apprentice rates are
established taking into accouht a number of factors, including
Regulations to the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen's Oualification
Act and the practices of other Ministries. In any event, it was
contended~that statements made at ERC meetingS~are not subject to
arbitration and, furthermore, that there has been no violation of
the collective agreement.
ERC meetings are held pursuant to Article 35 of the
agreement which provides for local and ministry negotiations
respecting emploYee relations. The Article further specifies
that such negotiations shall not be subject to'the mediation and
arbitration procedures under the Act provided that nothing shall
preclud9 a grievance alleging a violation of the collective
agreement. It is clear~ therefore, a grievance can be brought
only in respect of a matter arising under the agreement. In this
case, however, the UniOn seeks to enforce a statement made at an
ERC meeting which is outside the terms of the collective
agreement. Moreover, although the Union also raised an argument
based upon estoppel, the case for an estoppel has not been made
out. AccOrdingly, the grievance must be dismissed.
DATED AT TORONTO, this l?th day of September, 1992.
Vice Chairperson'