HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-3229.Vassallo.93-06-30
-
-" ;1~ \.
ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
CROWNEMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO
'\ COMMISSION DE
" GRIEVANCE
1111 SETTLEMENt ,
REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
780 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO, M5Ci lZ8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE (416) 326-1388
780 RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO) MSG tZ8 FACSIMILE: /TELECOPII= (416) 326-1396
3229/92
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
1- OPSEU (Vassallo)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Correctional Services) I
Employer
BEFORE G Charney Vice-Chairperson
FOR THE K Lawrence
GRIEVOR Grievance Officer
Ont~rio Public Service Employees Union
\ FOR THE A Pruchnicki
EMPLOYER Grievance Administration Officer
Ministry of Correctional Services
HEARING June 29, 1993
-
r-
-
~ .,...
."
AWARD
The issue here is the re-employment, after a 22 month absence,
of the grievor who was an experienced correQtional officer for a
large number of years He had risen to a managerial position prior
to his, departure and in fact had taught parts of the training
course in 1987 and 1988
~ The Employer's position is that the grievor was rehired as an
{
unclassified officer and when he received the classified position,
he should be treated exactly like any other unclassified officer,
in fact he 'was so trea+,ed He was required to go through the
-
training course and when he completed the training course he was
reclassified as a CO2, level 1 Prior to that he was a COl.
The Union's position is that when he was hired as a classified
officer, the personnel policy and procedures of the Ministry of
Correcfional Services should apply
That states in part
-
tIre-employment within 6 to 24 months of separation from
MCS with appointment to minimum salary rate of working
level classification (i e PO or CO2). If more than 5
years previous service, appointment to second step of
working level salary range
-~ -~ -_. -
~. ,\
------
A local orientation session will be provided to update
employees on changes in policies/procedures since
separation. Updating of mandatory training may also be
necessary Each situation should be reviewed by the
manager and staff training representatives "
I
The Employer's position is that if they hired him fresh in the
classified position, the Union's argument would be correct, that
is, he should become a CO2, level 2, immediately upon hire but
since he was hired in an unclassified position, when he was
appointed to the classified position, the Employer's policies do
not apply to that individual and in fact, the
unclassified/classified policies apply -
In my view that is not a reasonable position It is unf~ir to
treat the grievor differently because he was first unclassified and
then classified. The purpose of these policies is to ensure that
when experienced people are hired they are properly paid This is
fulfilled whether tpe grievor is initially hired as unclassified or
whether he is hired as classified It is my view that the moment
he is hired as a classified employee, the policies stated above
should apply.
Therefore it is the order of the Board that
1. the grievor be treated as a fully classified emp'loyee from his
date of hire as a classified employee, that is he becomes a CO2,
---~
'~7 ~ -1..
level 2 For the purposes of clarity, the anniversary date is the
date of his hire as a c:J..assified employee and the government should
pay him any differences in salary from the date of hire to the
present. On his anniversary date he would' be entitled to the merit
increase in the normal way
If there are any problems implementing this Award, I shall
remain seized of the matter
DATED at Toronto this 30th day of June, 1993
-. / {:U~V
'1 .
",./ /7 or
Gerald J Charney, Vice-Chairperson
.-
'-