HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-0887.Gaffney Jacob.17-03-21 Decision
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB#2016-0887, 2016-1198
UNION#2016-0429-0003, 2016-0634-0008
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Gaffney-Jacob/Taylor) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Transportation) Employer
BEFORE Nimal Dissanayake Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Lesley Gilchrist
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Thomas Ayers
Treasury Board Secretariat
Legal Services Branch
Counsel
HEARING March 17, 2017
- 2 -
Decision
[1] Ms. Cheryl Gaffney-Jacob and Ms. Anne Taylor have filed grievances dated
June 20 and 21, 2016 respectively, alleging that the employer had
contravened the collective agreement by not placing them at the proper level
on the pay grid, and seeking that they be placed at the top of the pay grid.
[2] The grievances came before me for mediation-arbitration pursuant to article
22.16 of the collective agreement. Mediation efforts did not result in a
resolution, and I received submissions from the parties.
[3] At the heart of the grievances is the claim by Ms. Gaffney-Jacob and Ms.
Taylor, who worked as Engineering Service Technicians at the ministry
offices in Kingston (Eastern Regional Office) and North Bay (North Eastern
Regional Office) respectively, that while they performed the same duties and
responsibilities, they are paid less than Engineering Services Technicians in
the Central Regional office.
[4] The union claims that since 2001 the grievors had repeatedly raised with
management that their positions are classified lower than their colleagues in
the Central Regional Office, and are consequently paid less. In 2013 the
employer finally undertook a review of the duties and responsibilities, and in
2015 upgraded the classification of the positions they held to the same level
as their colleagues in the Centre Regional Office. However, they were placed
only at step 4 of the pay grid, while Engineering Services Technicians in the
Central Regional Office were, and continue to be, at the top step of the grid.
Therefore, the union claims that the discrepancy and the unfairness
continues.
[5] There is no doubt that the grievors feel very sincerely and strongly, that they
are treated unfairly. They are convinced that they have the same duties and
responsibilities as their colleagues in the Central Regional Office, but are paid
- 3 -
less. This has significant financial impact on the grievors, and will have
adverse impact on their pension entitlement.
[6] The employer disagreed that the grievors were treated unfairly. The employer
had properly followed all applicable policies and procedures in relation to job
evaluation and classification of positions. The review conducted in
accordance with those policies and procedures resulted in the reclassification
of the grievors’ positions upward. However, it did not result in placement of
the grievors at the top of the pay grid for the new classification. While this
was unfortunate, there was no violation of the collective agreement. The
union had not asserted any facts that could constitute a violation of any
provision of the collective agreement.
[7] The employer submitted that in any event, the instant grievances are in effect
grieving the classification of the grievors’ positions. The Board lacks
jurisdiction to order any upward reclassification. Reliance was placed on
section 51 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and Re Alix et
al, 2013-0433 (Dissanayake).
[8] In Re Alix et al (supra) at para.6, the Board wrote:
Although no reclassification is explicitly sought, such an increase
can be obtained from the Board only through an order for upward
reclassification of the grievors’ position. However, section 51 of
the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act explicitly prohibits
the Board from assuming jurisdiction to make such an order.
[9] The foregoing statement equally applies here. The grievances are in
substance classification grievances. The union did not argue otherwise.
Therefore, even if the grievors’ assertion of unfairness is accepted as proven,
the Board is still constrained by the statutory prohibition and has no
jurisdiction with regard to these grievances.
- 4 -
[10] Accordingly both grievances are hereby dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 21st day of March 2017.
Nimal Dissanayake, Vice-Chair