HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-3019.Board.93-08-03
....,.......-_.~._---'-----~- -._"~-- ---._-_._~---- -~ ~------------- ~-'--- -------~::- ,--------~---'--;~--_...:..-_-~.._,--_._--_. --
~.
~- EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
ONTARIO
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO
GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
,
11I11 SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 2100 TORONTO ONTARIO, M5G 1Z8 TELEPHONE/TEUiPHONE (416) 326-1388
180 RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 2100 TORONTO (ONTARIO) M5G lZ8 FACSIMILE TELECOPIE (416) 326-1396
3019/92
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE .CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Beard)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of ontario
(Ministry of Community & social services) Employer-
BEFORE J. Devlin Vice-Chairperson
FOR THE ( J. Gilbert
GRIEVOR Grievance Officer
ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE J. stamp
EMPLOYER Employee Relations Officer
Ministry of Community & Social services
HEARING July 19, 1993
------~-- ----~----~---- -'- ..- .-- -- .~---.- --- ---~ -......_,_..-.._--~--- - .__..~.._-"--~~._----~...~----~_.-
,. ' . ,
, I
1
In this case, it is claimed that the Employer failed to
properly calculate the Grievor's continuous ~ervice date.
The facts which gave rise to the grievance are not in
dispute. The Grievor was properly appointed to the unclassified
service on a part-time basis as a Counsellor 2 (Residential Life)
at the Huronia Regional centre on June 26, 1989. Thereafter, she
worked under a number of contracts until her appointment to the
classified service as a full-time Counsellor II, Residential
Services on April 9, 1990.
The Employer calculated the Grievor's continuous -
service date as April 9, 1990, the date of her appointment to the
classified service. It was the position of the Union that the
Grievor ought to have been given credit for ,her service as a
member of the unclassified staff and requested that her
continuous service date be adjusted to.J"une 26, 1989.
/
The relevant provision of the collective agreement is
Article 25.1 which provides as follows:
ARTICLE 25 - SENIORITY
(LENGTH OF CONTINUOUS SERVICE)
25.1 An employee's length of continuous service will
accumulate upon completion of a probationary
period of not more than one (1) year and shall
commence:
(a) from the date of appointment to the
Classified Servica for thos~ employees with
'v
~
--~--_._-~---- -- - ~----~+------ .~-
.. -~--......_------ ~-~- ---~---------- -+ -- - ~-----~ - -----~- --- - --- --
.J!
2.
no prior service in the Ontario PUblic
Service; or
(b) from the date on which an employee commences
a period of unbroken, full-time service in
the public service, immediately prior to
appointment to the Classified Service; or
(c) for a regular part-time civil servant, from
January 1, 1984 or from the date on which he
commenced a period of unbroken, part-time
service in the public service, immediately
p;rior to appointment to a regular part-time
position ia the civil service, whichever is
later
"Unbroken service" is that which is not
interrupted by separation from the public service;
"full time" is continuous employment as set out in
the hours of work schedules for the appropriate
classifications; and "part-time" is continuous
employment in accordance with the hours of work -
specified in Article 61.1.
. .
Both parties acknowledge that the Grievor does not fit
squarely within any of the subparagraphs of Article 25.1. In
this regard, she is not an employee with no prior service as
provided in subparagraph (a) Moreover, although subparagraphs
(b) and (c) provide credit for prior service, in the Grievor's
case, her prior service was noe on a full-time basis so as to
entitle her to credit under subparagraph (b), nor was she
~ .
appointed to a part-time position in the classified service so as
to entitle her to credit for prior part-time service under
subparagraph (c).
There is not doubt that Article 25 1 creates certain
inequities. Nevertheless, the language of the Article is clear
~~-'~.._.~~_.,--~~-~- -----,.._---~- ._----_._~----_._- - '--------------:;.- -'-'----.----~._---'-----;-----+ ...;_._---".-~--
.
7 ,
3
and unambiguous and does not entitle the Grievor to credit for
prior part-time service as a member of the unclassified staff for
purposes of calculating her continuous service date
Moreover, although there was some suggestion by 'the
Union that the Grievor ought to have been appointed to the
classified service on part-time basis prior to April 9, 1990, it
was agreed that she was properly appointed to the unclassified
service in June of 1989 There is no basis upon which I could
conclude that her continuing appointment to the unclassified
service in the intervening period was improper
-
Accordingly, the grievance must be dismissed.
,DATED AT TORONTO, this 3rd day of August.,~ 1993. I
\ ~Ch4i. H~
Vice Chairperson
\