HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-2413.MacDonald.93-10-14
~ r
-==
~ ;-
I ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
"""";(. ;- CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO
1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
, .
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
.BOARD DES GRIEFS
-'
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 2100' TORONTO ONTARIO M5G lZ8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE (416) 326-1388
180 RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 2100 TORONTO (ONTARIO) M5G IZ8 FACSIMILE/TELECOPIE (416) 326-1396
2413/92
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
ATU (MacDonald)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Tqronto Area Transit Operating Authority)
Employer
BEFORE H waisglass Vice-Chairperson
W Rannachan Member
H Knight Member
FOR THE S Clarke
\GRIEVOR President & Business Agent
ATU Local 1587
FOR THE G Lodge
EMPLOYER Manager, Human Resources
Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority
HEARING August 19, 1993
l
HI"lRR'" WAISGLASS 416 525 7837 P 03 .
u
,
CO" "-
~
2
DECISION
Larry MacDonald grl.eves that hlS two-day stJspenSlDn [June 23 & 24J by letter
dated June 22, 1992, 1S without just cause ThlS grlevance ca~e to hear\rg~n
August 19, 1993
At the outset the Employer r'alsed the prel imlr'lOry \SSlJe of tImelIness It
clc:nms the appllcat1.0n for hear d.g was made to the GSB after the mandatory
tlme 1 wn ts of the coUectl ve agreement had e.xpl red Accord1ng to the clearly
expressedrequu'ements of the collect1'1e agr'eement, the grievance 1$ deemed to
be abandoned 1 f t'1e opplicatlon to the GSB 1 S not maele wi. tfn n those exphCl t
time 11nnts The Employer sub!l1i.ts~that thlS abandonment 0';: the grievance
constltutes a flnal determlnatlon of the grievance which renders it
1narb1.trable The Employer submits that the Board does no~ have jurlsdLction
to proceed 1n thlS matter It locks jurLsd1ctlon to proceed on a grlevance
which has been finally determined 1n accordance wlth the grievance procedure
in the coilectlve agreement The Board decIded to hear facts and argument on
thlS lssue before proceedtng on the ments
The relevant sect tons of "'Article 4- Gri.evance Procedure" of the Collecti.ve
Agreement, which was in effect at all material t1mes, are as follows
:< 4 3(4) If the grievor 1S not 5ot1sfted with the decision of the
applicable 8ranch Director or hlS des1.gnee, the Unlon may apply to
the Grlevance Settlement Board for arbi.tration of the gn.evance
wlth1n forty (40) calendar days of the date the grtevo~ recelved
the dedsl.On The Corporate response to such application ~\ll be
the sole responslotlity of the Corporate H~mQn Resources Offi.ce
It 1.$ further understood and agreed t~lat any remed1.es reached and
agreed upon prior to the matter bel.ng ad)ud\coted hy the Grievance
Settlement Boord, between the Uni.on and the Human Resources
Offlce, shall be f1.nal and binding upon all portles "
<< 4 7 The time limits contained In this article may be extended by
) agreement of the partles If any su~h agreement is not made In
wrlti.ng, the burden of provlng the e~lstence of any alleged
agreement shall be on the party asserting it
'Q HARR -( LoJA I SGLASS 416 525 7837 P 1214
~
'"'"1
3
" 4 12 (1) It 15 understood ondogl'eed that fmlure .:>f the Unlon to
advance a gn.evance W1. th\n the agreed t me frames at any
step of the gr1.e~Jnce procedure shall constItute abandonment
of such grlevance and$
.. .1 12 (2) Fallure of management to respo~d to a gri.evance at any step
of the grl€vonce procedure shall constltute allowance of the
gnevance "
The Soard agrees that the time 11.ml.ts ore dearly mandatory We note
particularly the dual aspects of the mandatory requlremer.ts at 4 12, In both
5ubsectlons ell and (2)
The Employer subrrri,ts that by thelr establ..shed practices the parti.es have
adhered str ctly to maklng all agreements on tlme-hmlt extensions 1.n wrltlng,
without exception The Employer submits, and the Union does l'lot deny, that it
has never refused a Unton request for a time.llmlt extenslon, and that the
Umon has never refused such Employer requests It 15 agreed fact that for
thi s partl. cu lar grievance [MocDonald] the Uni.on dl.d not request an extensLOn
It s agreed tact also that the partles had made 0 wrltten agt'eement for a
tlme extenSlon on thi. s gr'ievQnce$ but it appll.ed only to the prevl.OUS step of
the grtevance procedure "As agreed, due to vocatl.on t1.me arid scheduling
problems th s Step II wtll be scheduled in early August ofter 011 partl.es have
t'eturned" [Exhlbl.t 5 (1)] The Step II meetlng was held on August 20, 1992;
when the grtevor rec€wed the Employer's dectsion to deny the gr1.evance
" ,
Ar'tlcle 4.3 (4) of the ~o'lE':!cti.'''e Agreement Dl"OVlde.s th9t theUmon may ODDlY
for arbitration w1.thtn 40 ~alendar dQ~5 of that date, and Artl.cle 4.12 0)
dectat'es the gnevance tQ Qe abandoned 1 f the Union does not apply for
arbltratlon within tha~aareed time frame.
,
Consistent wlth its regular practIce, by letter dated October 16, 1992, the
Employer informed the Uni.on that the grievance of L MacDonald has "exceeded
the forty (40) day time liml.t, and therefore these flles have been closed in
accordqnce wlth Artlcle 4 12 (1)" [Exhiblt 5(2)J
HARR'r' WAr SGLASS 416 525 7837 p as fj
.V
t~ .~
t.
".
\
4
The Unlcn1s applicatIon for arb trattun of the MOLDonald grlBvance was dated
November 9, 1992, and date-stamped NQvember 13, 1992, os receIved by the GSB
[Exhlbit 5 (A)] It IS fact that t~e appllcatlnn was net made wlthtn the
requIred 40 calendar-day per\od It IS agreed fact that the UnIon dId not
request an extenSlon of thIS time Ilmi. t On the rocts. we agr'ee .Jhat the
gnevance had been abanqoned bef()re the Un10n opp1i.ed t-9_ the GSB. Thereby, we
find that the qn~vance was fInalll determl ned under the 9rlevance vrocedul'€
before th~ apollcation was made to the GSB.
The Union submi.ts that the appllcati.on for arbitration was delayed because the
grle~or was waltlng for a weB deCISion on an appeal regarding hIS beneflt
clai.m wider the Workers' Compensation Act~ whi.ch he belIeved was mater\Clt to
hl s gnevance However, as the Union reports, the WCB decls10n on this appeal
was reported to both the grievor and the Employer by lettet' dated September
23, 1992 The grievor acknowledges he had received the WCB decislon wlthln Q
a few days after September 23~ and soon after that he had di.scussed It wIth
hIS Union steward However, he did not gIVe i.t to Si.mon CIQI'ke, the Union
PreSIdent, Ul1tll October 19, 1992 [MacDonald's coverIng memo tronSm\ttlng
I
"0 photocopy of the WCB deci.slOn" is time and date-stamped "19 Oct 9 09" ]
It appears that lf MacDonald had delivered the weB letter to Clarke promptly
after recel VHig It. Clarke may have had the opportunity to arrange for an
el<.tens\on before the expiration of the ti.me ttml.ts, or at least before Octobel"
16th, the date of the Employer's noti.ficatlon to the Union that the grlevonce
&1 Ie was closed In any event, nel ther the grievor' not' the Union subrm tted
the grievance to the GSB w~thtn the requlred tIme limits
MI' Clarke, the Union spokesperson~ submits that the ttme llmits do not apply
to thlS grievance [claiming suspension wlthout just] because It is submitted
to the GSB pursuant to Sect\on 18 (2) subsectton (c) of the Crown EI11l2.1~
Collecti.ve Bargaining Act [lECBAJ, whtch provldes
\
" In addition to any othel' r\ghts of grievance under a collectlv~
agreementj an employee claiming
" HARR'l WAISGLASS 416 5"25 7837
p 06
-~
S
"' (c:) that he has been disctpl1ned or chsmlsse.d or suspE;nded
from hls employment wIthout Just cCQse~
" mav process such matter 1n accordance wi.th the
gr1Pvonce procedure of the collectlve agreement and
fen llng final determi.natton und~r such pl'ocedw~e, the
matter may be processed n accordance with the procedure
for fInal detel~lnation cppllcable under section 19 >>
Mr Clarke's submtSsIon lS that the time 11m ts of the collectlve agrecmet1t
do not apply to gnevclnces processed under SectlOn 18 (2) of the CECBA whi.ch
establishes an Independent statutory ~lght to grieve on such specifi.ed lssues,
qUIte apo~t from the requlren~nts .of the collectlve a9r~ement The Urnon
subnnts that the ~JCBA sets no time t lmtts for the ar'bltratton of such
statutory grlevances That would i.mply that Q d1smis~al or disdpl1nory
grlevance, as example, could be f,led effectlvely years after the event
We do not agree The CECBA speci. flcally provldes that sllch grievances are to
be precessed <<i.n accordance wLth the gr\evance procedure of the collecti.ve
agt'eemene' The tlme limits ore lntegral to the grievance procedure and
therefore the gne'Jance must be processed wlthin those requIrements
The col1ectlVe agreement as a whole, which regulates all aspects of the
relatLOnship between an employer and uni.on, and particlllarly 1.11 respect to
dlScipl1~ary matters, lS subJect to statutory lmperattves It should be noted
that among the matters Ot, Which a union and employer are "auth6nzed to
bargaln~, by Sect1.on 7 of the \,[eBA, are "the procedures applicable to the
pro~esslng of grievances" Jt is gur judament that the CECaA impl\~s
r~Qsonable ~lme l\mL~s for the processlng of a suspension arievance.Ias well
as certaln other statutory grlevcnce claims provtded for in Section 18 (2)J
And ~hQt time llmits cou1d Qe more reasonabl~ than t~e time limlts whlch th~
QQrtles themselves have aareed /,.loon tn their own collectlve agreement?
We flnd therefore that the mandatory tune llmi.ts of the collectwe agreement
ore reasonable and applicable
HARRY ~"jA I SGLASS 416 525 78'37 F' 01 Ii
~
6
The statute gives the grlevor, "in addition to any other rights of Jrievance
under a collective agreement", ~he right to "process~ his suspension grievance
"In ar(0r~an~~ wlth the grlPvonce procedure of the collective agreement" And
further, "fallIng final determinatIon under such procedure" he has the right
to hr'M.: In 5 91" ttVUIll.~ urbL tr'c'lted U) the GSB Clearl v. .he rWS the r'l.cht to
. ~'
~lt'bttr(ltiQn anlv 11' thf' onf'Vrm('t'\ 1:>0 nnt f1nnl1y r1~t~r"l'lltif:lrl 'mrlp..., thf"l
proc~dure A grievance WhlCh has been settled, Withdrawn or abandoned IS Q
gnevance WhlCh hC1S been fInally deternll.ned
The grie\Ot' exercls~d h.s stotL~tOt'y nght when he took his grievance through
the ;:woccdurc He was not denied acc~ss to the pro~edure Hi. s gt"te\'(l!1ce WcJS
pi"6'-L:.:s::.t::J ~IPW't.)~W .ute ly Th~ ~v tJenc:<: 1:5 c::leClI- that lie hod abcJt1dlJried Lhe
grlevnnr~ by hl'i f(Jj lUff: tn r1pn1y fnr nrhltrati.nn wIthu1 thp mandated 40-day
)
11ml t An obandonc~ grievance 19 one WhIch ~~! bce~ ~e~~~~t~~~ wt~h ~\~~l\ty
\ Conseo.~lently, th~ grl ~v()r do~" not hc'JVt'" the': stntlltnry r10ht tn hav@ thi. ';
grIevance arbitrated by the GSB Our thorough and careful examtnatton (Hid
c()nS~';.'!.I...:l~1.~WI of the ~l"luLe \:ol'H:lud~d \.hel.'e \5 1~.::.Lh1.ll~ Lu !~ull L (y LIlt:: L PIlt::
ltml ts
We find that Sectlon 18 (2) of the CECBA gIves the gnevor the rIght to have
his ~rleVan(e processed In accordance with the valld requ rements of the
gric..'QI'\cc. prG<<,;dul'~, t,,<::lud1.I'9 t't:~ t\nle 11.miL~ The L ti\1e 111\1\ I S ..:Ii e 'v t ldl <:lllj
vnlld components of the procedure The legislature could .not have Intended to
seriously Impair the procedure by the removal of ltS time lImits NothIng In
the stot~lte permi.ts us to null 1. ty the ti.me limits The statute gives the
grtevor the right to grieve. It does not gIve the grIevor tne rlgnt at
€y€mpHvM fl-OIl1 the v~li.d 1"~(1uit"~r!1~ril5 or Lh~ collr;:c.:Li.'v~ uyr'e-=I~I~rIL,
particularly the ti.me 11mIts The statute does not gtve the grievor the right
to Ot'bltrQte (l gnevance WhlCh has been finally determtne<..i oy settlement,
wi.thdrawal or abandonment An abandoned grIevance is Q fInally-determIned
9 r1 e vr.m c e The statute does not gtve the GSa the jurlsdi.ctlon to proceed on a
ar1~V'1n(('" whirh hn" hpfln finnl1y rtptf'rminprl wiHnn thl" lt1wflll rp'1' lrpmpn1'<;; nf
the procedures
IIARt-: I-l....IOGLAOQ ,+1<:' <<:.'~c; 7037- r O~
,..;
----..
~
) 7
The e~sence of th~ Un on's SUbtlHSS10i1 lS that the hmc lwnts e,f tJ1e
collecti.ve agreement dnnot -.:lpply to thi.s sUSpens.10n gnellClnce because the
nght to gneve 0 suspen~iQn 1S Cl stntiJr(')r'Y t'i.~lht os dlstrnct ft'om 0
coi lert-, '.,Ie agreement nght Neither' the Uni.on nor the Emplo.le~' subml tted Clny
C1uthontl.es on t~L5 lSSl1E There 1S, howe;er, outhorlty to support the Unl.nn's
s:utvm.€(:lon tn PI"C\"1.ou~l) dc~\ded ':"5~!o Tl It;; Bt.Jw J h(l';:, \Jrev OUS ly canvQsse.a the
lSSJe In a number of cases i.n KeehnQ GSB 45/78 (Prttchord), the semInal
declS10n, whl.ch was followed wltnout quesbon by Vlegas GSB 384/8B (Devlin),
SablJak uSB 1711/~1 (Uarrett), Di P~\clQ GSB 51/90 (Samuels), os well as many
utht:'I" cases wn1ch we have not examlned
Keelinq r\QlmS that sprtlon 1R(?) p~tnhl'~hes "the ~totutory rlght of the
~mf110Yl?l? to ~rc:]cct the outcome of the gl'lG\iQr'iL(! f)f'Ut.t:S::S tll1d to lut'l~ Lu lh~
procedure fOt' arbltrotlOn", and furthermoreJ that this unquallhed and
unrestrlcted statutory nght to arbi. t,'obon nulll fies the mandatory ti.me
I1mIts requIred by the grievance. procedure in the collective agreement {p 20}
,"or rcasonr, SC~ forth b~low's W~ rinJ ~~ lS dtstingulshab1e We are
Iln nrlfld ..,f m"~,,, r,r;n 'l?(,~./S7 (ShuJJIoI) wrlll;.h requi.ros that di.ff'crc"t pal'el~ ~i
the Board not overrule earljer decisions of other panels unless the
ClrCUtl1!;tanc("s ('ll'e ~~except: 101101)) We t'cspe:Ll ttll: pnKtical unportclhce and
legIt\mncy of Bloke's unlfYlng objecttves to discourage multlple dec\s\onS9n
the same grIevances and on the same i.ssues among the dtfferent panels within
the one Board,. with the eOI'5~'luet"tL WQSLe: uf ~UH.te resour'ces
Thl~ LU~~ L~ dist1ngutshaole ir. tnat the partles ~re different and they have a
very d1.fferent collecti.ve agl"ccmcnt, partl.(ularly u, the pt'UYl::'llJrl wtllc;h
declClres clearly and expl i. (i. t lv that G Qrl.eVClnCe whi t h (jnp<; nnt pre-treed to
ar'bitr'dtlon wlthl.n the mandatcl'y tlme llmlts IS deemed to be abandoned And
finally, K,ee l\l1g dld not address the quest i.on of whether the gri.evor has the
i.ght to proceed to arbitration on an abandoned grlevance, partlcularly on a
\;11"1.eval't:t:: dt::~r\',=cJ tv tJt:' abandoned by the dEar and eXpl1Cl.t Language of the
collective agreement
0
HARR'l' WAISGLASS 416 525 7837 P 03 ~
Ii ~
8
We' ("on r,(l+- (IN'Ppt Keelt,,\~~'S V"e:w lhc..,L Lhet',;; \3 "Ult :slututury nght uf the
employee to reJect the outcome of the grievance Pl'ocess" KeelinG notes that
"the effe~t'~ of bj't"!'H'''h \"f t;.~ ttm~ IlltlH s i. s LL! tltt:fP th~ '9n~v(.lrlr....t.' to be
W't thdrcwm" {p 14}, but it fInds that the time li.mits do not apply where they
sprve tc deny 0 statutory ri.ght to arbitration W6 do not agree In our
-
ludqment, It) thlS Cc;lSE;, the aema1 to oroceetLtQ..crbltmtlrin, , n ,t~ .e.s.S.~fP ,_
lS .::1 demo l _to proceed further on (l grl.-::vance after It has been le9..1 tmate 1.;
and flllall) oeter'mined.
We do not agree that "fInal determination" can mean only a settlement to the
gl'\ey'':;I''s ~,'L'i.!>rUI..Llurl 0;11,;1;:: L.tll;::' t11lJ.lluYl;::l;: hu::. t:lX.t::fLl:;>t;!U hL~ r'L~ht to yr'ieve
has processed hIS grievance through the procedure, and has abandoned the
gnevance by hIS fallure to meet the procedure's valHi and legi.timate tlme-
.J
LmLt~, ~li~ grtevance has been flnallv determtned ~under such procedure" He
(en not now revIve It for arbitratlon Thus, the right to orbitrbtlon exists
only for those grievances which have not been flnally determIned
OW"- cLelW ~weret'eth..e \S Lu Lf!L~q)f'~t HIt;! ~tututt:: (,:) It 1~, vnthout the
addl.hen ':If V'-901i.nCl'c;amondi.ng l/.::lnguQgc Thuo, wo lntcrprqt th~ word~ "fln~l
detet-ml not 10n l..lnder such procedllre~ to mean that a gnevance may be termInated
by anyone of three outcomeS before 1.1: reQches arblt:rati.Or1 fhe grtevQn~e may
be withdrawn, abandoned or settled {See Palmer,E E , lollectlve A9reement
ArbItratIon l~ Canadc,(1978) p 167 }
On thIs subJect the followl.ng quotations, from Brown and Beatty, Canadian
ltibvw"AI'bllt'aLLufl, (1977), un: f.'(:r'twt!rtt
I
"As well, there may, ln certmn Instances be other factors affect1ng an
arbltrQtor's jurisdlctlon For example, a grievance may have been
mthdrawn, settled, or otherWlse concluslvelv deterrl1lt1ed" (p 41)
[Emphasis is ours]
And "Generally, where in the course of the grievance procedure the parties
have dealt With a particular grievance so thQt It IS settled,
w1thdrawn, abandoned or has become tlme barred, that will prevent the
reVival and re~ubmi~~ion of the Game grIevance to arbitratlon That 1 S ,
tn the same way as the doctrine of res judIcata appHes to pnor awards,
the sett 1ement, ab(mdonment, and withdrawal of a grievance 'w1.11 be
~,
HARRY WAISGLASS 416 525 7837 P 04
~
9
~ ~"I' L~ L1.... 1..11 LLln~LLVII ....,f" '-I =>~'~VfllJ Sill l.el/WILl; whtcn oealS wlth tne same
subJect matter The cleor DurDose of the rule that a settled. withdrawn
Ot' abandoned d 1 sDute cannot be the subiect of a subsequent s'ubmi 55 lOn to
a bieratlon IS to orovlde finalltv " (pp 87-8) [EmphasIs IS ours]
Anyone of such out<.Vf"lcS settlement. withdrawcl. or Qbondonmeh~, t S 0 fJ.ngl
determination Wh1Ch e(hausts the gr .evor's rlght to proceed further wlth the
Jt'1 fV(]t1ff' Thp ;tn7"lltf'. oi,'es nil emp ,::1\,6& thQ rlght tQ brHl~ hl.C {fl::iml~::lal 01"
suspenSIon grIevance before the GSB, but only In the absence of a ~flnal
determu1QUQ!1>> throuah th~ qnevance procedw'e
An aband()n~d gnevarce 15 a fl"iai ly-determlned grievance~ Just as much as Ot1e
Whl(h ,~ ~pttlpn nr withrlrnwn Once (I grteVanCil 1i. flnally detoflml.l1Ca, it liO
.onger eXl.sts It is 0 dead qrl€VanCe
SectlOl'lS 18(2) and 19 do not perml.t dead gr1.evances to be brO-ight befote tre
G58 Wfn Ie the stotute establIshes on employee's right to Clr .eve unJust
dlsclpllne, d\~mtssal er suspension} It also requIres such grlevances tu be
processed and t1etcr'nnned through the grievance pl"ocedure And further, wtnle
It gives the employee the rlgnt to bring the matter b~fol'e 'Lhe GSa rur'
arbl.tratlon !hQt rl.aht 1S effectlve~only 1n the absence_of a flnal
~m.lnat lon lmnf:r thp. r1rlevr.mcE' procedure_
Tlme l\m.ts ore v\tol and. integral to the purpose of the grIevance procedure
to encourao~ nnrl fnrllltntp s~ttl@m@nt Tlme 11mit~ can not bc scparatec or
removed ',..,1 thout serious ly impainng the two) essential fut"icti.<;ms res idtng i. n
the procedure [lJ the expedi ti.cus d~ov~ af facts and mer ts' through the
e~changes and discussions which take place at each stage, withlr the defined
tlme limIts, and [2J prompt and practical decision-mak1hQ to resolve the
gr'l.evC1I1CO offc<;t'l.ycly on l.t::; mCI~1.ts thrt"lU1h "egotH:1Ltvl1~ wtLhll Itlu;::,~ L.rrlc
l1nn ts
The- (ECBA reQU1 re~ the parties to p'..wsue ~e.tt 1 f:111Ant through the orievance
pl"ocedure before resortlt1g to orbltration
HARRY WAISGLASS 416 525 7837 ,
P 85 "
""
f
10 I
The pr'oceduret In the case at hand, per'mtts an unt~esolved gri.evance, one that
is neIther settled nor withdrawn, to advance to the next stage, lnclud ng
arbltrat1on, vnthln certcnn t1me llm1ts, after whi.ch the grIevance is dee~'ned
to be abondoncd There IS ab~olute ly nothlng ....n the (ECBA to deny ct" rest r1 ct
the ~lghts of the parties to include these time 11mlts 1n the col~ective
agreement. Arbl t t'ators do not have the powe,' to nu' LI fy the tIme lImIts,
i.mless they ure l.lecH'ly ~)f'ufr'l.LoIled by st1..1tu't:e I~ our Judgment, tQ add words
to the statutory provIsion to glve it a meaning whl:h It could not bear
otherwtse, a meani.ng whi.ch could not hove been Intended legl.51ati.vely, does
not provide an i.nterpretatlon upon whIch we can rely
The total thr u::.t uf tht= It::yLsll'L1.v~ 1.!itel"lt of t:/'\e ([(GA. as we undcl'.;tand ....t,
l~ Lu 1'~liuLt'e, et~c\Jul'~ge, Clt,d fa~tli.t:at:e collectwe bargmmng In C!i~ence,
th1S mea~s the employpr ond tt,p hnrgnln1ng ngp.nt nr~ encouroged, e~pected QnQ
even reqult'ed ]oi.ntly to make, admInister and enforce thei.r own nilesllaws
governIng employer-employee relati.onshlps In the work place, except only 1n
respect to those matters spec~flcally governed by statute The CEtBA
legiti.ml.zes the collecttve agreement os the expressl.on of the prlvote laws of
the work place governi.ng employer-employee relahom.
Ne ther the grIevance procedure as such, nor the time li.mlt~ 1n partlcular,
deny or nullIfy the employee's statutory nght to process a gnevance through
011 stoges iJf1 to rmrl ; nrluding arbl. trClt1.0n The dentol Qf the r1.ght to pro~f.~1
t9 arbltratlon. on a arl€vance whi.ch has been detertnlned flnatly by lts
abandonment. or otherwi.se. is not a.deni.al of the right to aneve.
Fina~ Iy, the m:.ievance procedure 'is among the matters authorlZed for
bargal.ning by See 7 of the CECBA, and upon whlch the partIes must .'bargaln In
good faIth and make every reasonable effort to ma~e Q collectlve agreement"
[See 8 (2)J We can not believe that the CECBA, wh1ch expl1ci.tly reo.U1res the
parties to bargo1.n in good fai.th on Q grievance procedure, among other
approved bargaining matters to be included i.n a c~llecti.ve agreement, would
nulllfy the time li.mltswhlch are an integral part of the procedure
'\
--------
J 416 525 7837 P 06
, H A RR Y WHISGLASS
..
,..-.,
"
11
For t'€t150nS 'glven herei.ti the Ernployer s pt'el i.m1.nary cbject\on succeeds and
the pre ceed'l ngs on th'. s gne ..once ar'e h~reby terml"1oted
DATED AT HAMILTON, ONTARIO, THIS -HI-- DAY OF OCTOBER, 1993
~cJ~ '
- - ------ - -- ~
HARRY J W AsS--;i~e-Chairperson
&R~~..~ #
-
--- -----------
--
W RANNACHAN, MEMBER
. ~
-_,.: ~..L/f".b~..,-------~----- --
H KNIGHT MEMBER
\
\