HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-1674.Theoret.95-05-02
~1
~,.: ~!_.=,. \ (
ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES ~P;;ISSION D~
GRIEVANCE "\ ,.f,
1111 SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT > r..(\ IV .
.~. 0)\ e '"\1 -.'\.--
I..
BOARD DES GRIEFS . \ . ':-1-
_j _._\ I
li.,\
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 2100, TORONTO ONTARIO. M5G lZ8 TELEPHONEITtU:PHONE (416) 326-1388
180, RUE DUNDAS OUESt BUREAU 2100. TORONTO (ONTARIO) M5G lZ8 FACSIMIL.E ITEL.ECOPIE (416) 326-1396
GSB # 1674/93
OPSEU # 93G282
IN THE HATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN.
OPSEU (Theoret)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Finance)
Employer
"
BEFORE: J. :Roberts Vice-Chairperson
M. Lyons Member
D Montrose Member
FOR THE D. Wright
GRIEVOR Counsel
Ry~er, Whitaker, Wright
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE R Kramer
EMPLOYER Counsel
Legal Services Branch
Management Board Secretariat
HEARING January 25, 1995
--------------
1
, ~>' i
Eo"
~.,=.J~ -~ " (
J
! INTERIM AWARD
)
I. I Introduction
1
j
!
At the outset of the hearIng in thIS matter, the Employer raised two ObjectIOns to
Jun~dIctIon. The first objection was that the, gnevance herem was a classIfication grievance that
both parties had agreed not to further to the hearIng stage pursuant to the Local AppendIx to the
I
I
Sec,oral Framework Agreement of August 1, 1993 The second objection wc},s that in any event,
I
I
this! specific gnevance was effectively settled between the parties prior to the hearing. For
reas~ns which follow, both objections are dIsmIssed
i
II. The Facts
I
!
i At the hearing; the partIes submitted the followmg Agreed Statement of Facts
\
i
i 1 This is a grievance brought by Diane Theoret, a public servant" (the
"Grievor") pursuant to Article 27 of the Collective Agreement between the
I parties. Attached as Schedule "1" is a copy of ~he grievance form dated June
I
\ 17, 1993.
2. The Grievance, fIled on June 14, 1993 states in part:
~ Statement of Grievance
That I bave been denied re-c1assification to ~ level of Property Assessor ill
in contravention of the Collective Agreement, specifically but not exclusively
Article "A" and Article "50"
! Settlement Desired
To be re-c1assified to a level of a Property Assessor ill effective June 1, 1993
i
t
--------- - ~ ..
~ jf
1$'" , (
2
3 On August 1, 1993, the Union and the Government of Ontario e~tered into
a Sectoral Framework Agreement under the Social Contract Act. The Local
Appendix to the Sectoral Framework Agreement (attached as Schedule "2")
provided in part as follows:
8. The parties agree that all classification grievances under the
Crown Employees Collective Bar2ainin~ Act or under a
collective agreement between the parties med by or on bel)aIf
of employees in the bargaining unit of public servants
represented by the Union for which a decision of the Grievance
Settlement Board has not been rendered by August 1, 1993 are
withdrawn effective August 1, 1993 and the parties shall take
no steps to further any such grievance or any hearing of such
a grievance and shall take no steps to enforce any decision of
the Board pertaining to any' such grievance after August 1,
1993.
. . .
10. For the purpose of this agreement, and, in particular
paragraphs 8 and 9 above, "classification grievances" includes,
but is not limited to, ..
(c) all grievances claiming improper classification of
persons within the classification system of the employer
in which part of the settlement desired is the
reclassification of the grievor or grievors to an existing
classification standard that properly applies to him, her
or them.
4. A side letter to the Local Appendix stated,
The Employer agrees to allocate the lump sum of $20,000,000 00 in
addition to any other amount allocated for the Bargaining Unit
Overhaul, for the purpose of compensating employees whose
Classification grievances have been withdrawn or rendered void by the
local agreement.
The Employer will pay this money to the employees mentioned above
in accordance with an agreement between the Union and the Employer
for the distribution of the monies to these employees.
- -- --- - - - - - -
--- -
v
;"
(':fi;,. " .( (
3
5 A Stage 2 hearing was held on July 27, 1993 after which the Deputy
Minister's Designee, D Hillman, wrote to the Grievor on August 12, 1993,
denying her grievance. Attached as Schedule 113" is D Hillman's respons~
to the Stage 2 hearing.
6. After receiving the Stage Two response, Nick Luczay, a grievance officer of
the Union, wrote to the G.S.B. on October 26, 1993 and asked to arrange a
hearing of the grievance. Further letters seeking to amend the description
of the grievance were sent to the G.S.B. by Mr Luczay, with a copy to the
Employer, on December 6, 1993 (Schedule "4") and Oy grievance officer
George Richards on March 10, 1994 (Schedule "5") A copy of Mr
Richards' letter was copied to the Employer by not received.
7 By letter dated October 26, 1994 (Schedule "6"), grievance officer Gavin
Leeb requested that this matter be scheduled for hearing at the next available
opportunity. A copy of Mr Leeb's letter was not sent to the Employer
I
8. On November 9, 1994, upon learning that the grievance was set down for
hearing on January 25, 1995, Ken Cribbie, Labour Rela~ions Consultant at
the Ministry of Finance, wrote to Cliff Woodrow, emplqyed by the Union as
a Classification Analyst on the Job Classification Overhaul Project. Attached
as Schedule "7" is a copy of this letter .
9 Mr Cribbie sought clarification on the matter, asking whether the grievance
should go on to the $20M list or whether it was proceeding to arbitration on
January 25, 1995.
10 On November 10, 1994, Mr Woodrow telephoned Mr. Cribbie~s office and
informed Mr Cribbie's secretary, Kay Bacchus, that the Grievor is included
in the $20M fund. Ms. Bacchus, in turn, relayed this message to Mr
Cribbie by E-Mail. Attached as Schedule "8" is a copy of the print out E-
mail message.
11 Following this message, Mr Woodrow sent Mr. Cribbie a list, dated
November 16, 1994, compiled by the Union which setout all those
classification grievances earmarked to be compensated from the $20M fund.
The Grievor was included on the list. Attached as Schedule "9" is a copy of
that portion of the $20M list which includes the Grievor
12 Upon receiving Mr Woodrow's response and the $20M list, Mr. Cribbie
wrote to the Registrar of the Grievance Settlement Board on November 17,
1994, (Schedule "10") stating that "the parties have agreed that the above-
noted grievance falls within the provisions of the local agreement to the Social
Contract Sectoral Framework regarding classification cases. Therefore it will
~-
'"
c-
tl; (
4
not be necessary to have a hearing and your file may be closed" A copy of
the letter was sent to the Union.
13 Upon learning that the Employer had requested that the Board close its file,
Nick Luczay contacted the Board and the Employer, stating that the
grievance would be proceeding on January 25, 1995.
ID. The Submissions of the Parties
(2) Classification Grievance
Upon the question wbether this gnevance was a classIfication gnevance that was
compromised in the Local Appendix, it was submItted on behalf of the Employer that because
the only remedy that was sought and that was available in the present case was reclassificatIon,
the grievance met the defimtIon of "claSSIficatIon grievance" under the Local AppendIX and
could not be brought to arbitration. Reference was made to Re AItken & Ministry of Health
(1993), G S.B. No 678/87 (Gorsky), Re Lusi&nan & Ministry of the Environment (1994),
G S B No .C/OO12/93 (Low), Re Courte/MacGregor & Mimstry. of the Solicitor General
(1994), G S B No 1946/93 (Roberts), and, Re DOlg & Ministry of the EnVIronment (1994),
G S B No C/OO13/93 (Barrett)
It was submitted on behalf of the Umon, however, that the gnevance at hand was not a
claSSIfication grievance but was, instead, a dIscrimmation gnevance under Article A of the
Collective Agreement. It was stressed that the grievance raIsed discrimmatIOn Issues ansmg out
of the career path gUIdelInes used by the Employer, WhICh purported to reqmre two years of
actual traImng as a Property Assessor 2 before progressmg to the Property AsSessor 3 level.
';i"\ <1").. (
5
The claim of discnmmatlOn, it was submItted resIded In the Impact upon the grievor of the
traInIng requIrement In thIS guidelIne. When applIed to the grievor, It meant that she had to
spend two years and SIX months as a Property Assessor 2 because, dunng the two-year period,
she had been away from work and pence unavailable for traimng, for six months' pregnancy an9
parenta1leave It was further submitted that In support of thIS claIme reference would also be
made to the reqUIrement of ArtIcle 50 6 1 of the CollectIve Agreement th~t persons returnIng
to wor~ from parenta11eave are entItled to be paid at the step in the salary grid at which they
would have been paId had they remaIned at work. These Issues, it was submitted, were far
removed from the usual "class standard" and' "class usage" Issues normally raIsed in
classification cases. In support of thIS submISSIon, reference was made to Re
Courte/MacGregor, supra.
(2) Prior Settlement
[
Turnmg to the question whether there was a pnor settlement of thIS grievance, counsel
for the Employer stressed that on November 9 and 19, 1994 there was correspondence between
the parties indicating agreement Jhat the ,gnevance at hand should be included among the
classification grievances due to be settled by payment of momes out of a twenty mIllIon dollar
fund that had been establIshed for thIS purpose. It was noted that on November 9, Mr Ken
Cribbie, a Labour Relations Consultant WIth the Employer wrote to Mr ClIff Woodrow, a
Classification Analyst for the Union on the Job ClaSSIficatIon Overhaul Project, asla.ng whether
\
this grievance should be mcluded on a lIst of those to be so settled or should go to arbItratIon
\
~
T :tJ (
-
6
On the next day, November 10, 1994, it was pointed out, Mr Cribbie receIved a message from
1
Mr Woodrow statIng that the grievance at hand was to be included among the classIfication
"-
grievances to be so settled.
ThIS, it was submItted on behalf of the Employer, constItuted a final and bIndIng
settlement of the instant gnevance. Reference was made to Re St. Clalf College and Ontano
PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (July 13, 1992), unpublished award (ShIme), Re ACF Flexible
Ink and Graphic CommunicatIOns International Umon. Local 500M (1989), 8 L.A C (4th) 70
(Stewart), and, Re OPSEU and Mimstry of Community and Social Services (1985), G S B No
1350/84 (Roberts)
It was submitted on behalf of the Umon, however, that Mr Woodrow's response was
nothing more than an erroneous representation that was mcapable of raIsing an estoppel, let
alone creating a binding settlement agreement. In this regard, It was pOinted out that Mr
Woodrow's response contradicted informatIon that had been gIVen to both the Grievance
Settlement Board and the Employer on December 6, 1993 that the instant grievance was not a
classification grievance which was due to be settled from the twenty mIllion dollar fund, but was
a discnmInation gnevance for whIch a heanng had to be arranged. It was further pOinted out
that this position of the Union was reaffirmed by further correspondence to the Gnevance
Settlement Board from the Union on March 10, 1994 and October 26, 1994 It was agreed,
however, that the Employer had not received copIes of thIS correspondence. It was further
submItted that there could have been no detrimental relIance by the Employer upon Mr
'l"" (
7
Woodrow's error because within a short time after learmng of the error, the Umoncontacted
the Grievance Settlement Board and the Employer stating that the grievance would be proceedmg
to a hearing on January 25, 1995 ~--
In light. of this, it was submitted, all that had occurred was a mere admimstratIveerror
(
on the part of Mr Woodrow which was not effective to WIthdraw the grievance In support of
thiS submissIon, extensive reference was made to Re Williams & Mimstry of Culture &
Communications (1990), G S B No 1607/86 (Kaplan)
IV~ Consideration of the Issues
(1) Classification Grievance
It seems to us that the first preliminary objectIon must be dismIssed. The Instant
grievance is not, in substance, a classification grievance that was captured' by the moratonum
upon classificatIon grievances in the Local AppendIX to the Sectorial Fram~work Agreement of
August 1, 1993 As was stated In Re Courte/MacGregor, supra.
Under paragraph 10(c) of the Local Appendix, "classification grievances" include
"grievances claiming improperclassification...in which part of the settlement desired
is... reclassification. " To fall within this defmition, then,_ a grievance must (1) claim
improper classification, and, (2) seek as part of the settlement, reclassification. In
the present case, the grievances do not claim reclassification. They claim
discrimination.
Nor do we think, as suggested by counsel for the Ministry, that in substance, the
grievances claim improper classification. It seems to us that a claim of
discrimination might involve the consideration of evidence and issues far beyond
those to be found in the usual classification grievance. Id. ~t 7-8
I
i
I
~l~ ., (
8
Under paragraph 10 (c) of the Local Appendix, to be considered a "classificatlon gnevance",
(1) the substance of the grievance must bea claim of Improper classIficatIon and (2) part of the
settlement sought must be reclassIficatIon
Here, we must agree with the submIssion of the Umon that the substance of the claim
in the instant grievance is discnmmatlon m breach of ArtIcle A of the Collective Agreement
and/or in breach of Article 50 6 1 of the Collective Agreement, relating to the step at whIch an
employee must be paid upon returning to work from pregnancy leave. In thIS regard, we note
that the issues sought to be raised are not the usual classIfication Issues mvolvmg class standard
or class usage arguments, but rather discnmmatlon Issues revolvmg around the career path
guidelInes of the Employer
(2) Prior Settlement
Turnmg to the second prelImmary obJectlon, we conclude after careful consIderatlon that
It, too, must be dismissed. In the specific circumstances of this case, it does not appear that Mr
Woodrow's response to Mr Cribbie can be regarded as effectlng a bmdmg agreement that the
gnevance at hand should be treated as a classIficatlon gnevance to be settled out of the twenty
millIon dollar fund. Our main reason fot reachIng this conclusion IS that, from the eVIdence,
It appears that Mr Woodrow and Mr Cribbie were on special assignment from the Umon and
Employer, respectlvely, to compile the parties' 11sts of outstanding classIfication grievances and
then consohdate them together mto a mutually agreed lIst for purposes of settlement out of the
------- - -- ---
c
~ 'J (
9
twenty millIon dollar fund This was an exerCIse that apparently dId not mvolve detailed
examination of the mdivIdual claims or ments of each gnevance, Le., the contents of each
grievance, rather, it solely involved examming the label of each gnevance
The label aSSIgned to the instant gnevance had been a source of confusion before Messrs.
Cribbie and Woodrow became involved in communicating WIth each other It will be recalled
that on December 6, 1993, Mr N Luczay, a Grievance Officer with the Union, adVIsed the
Grievance Settlement Board and the Employer that the instant gnevance had been mcorrectly
labelled a classIficatlon gnevanceand should have been relabelled "classification! Article A."
ThIS same information was relayed to the Gnevance Settlement Board on March 10, 1994, by
Mr George Richards, a Senior Grievance Officer with the Union. Unfortunately, it would
appear from the evidence that whatever internal documents Mr Woodrow consulted before
contacting Mr Cribble must have retained the original label.
We d.o not hesitate to say that had Mr Cribbie and Mr Woodrow actually been eggaged
In concluding a settlement upon the merits of the gnevance at hand, their commUnIcatlons would
have sufficed to bmd both the Union and the Employer We agree WIth the observations of
Arbitrator Shime in Re St. Clair College, supra, when he saId.
As a general rule, contending parties are entitled to rely on each other's word in
order to effect a settlement. CertaiJiIy in collective bargaining where there is a
continuing relationship, verbal communications based on trust are extremely
important and when counsel for the Union on January 4, 1992 advised counsel for
the College that the grievor had elected to resign and that the grievance was
withdrawn there was a binding settlement between the parties. That settlement was
-
~.l
(
10
subsequently conimned by counsel for the College in her letter to counsel for the
Union dated January 22~ 1992.. Id. at 4.
It is in the interest of good labour relations to give effect to verbal co~mumcations between the
partIes to a collective agreement that are based upon trust.
However, where, as here, the alleged negotIated settlement appears to rest, inter alIa,
upon a SUperfiCIal exammation of the label assigned to the grievance withm the narrow context
of consolidating a list of numerous gnevances for purposes of wholesale settlement, ~t IS dIfficult
to conclude that an effective and irrevocable act has taken place. It would not seem to be m the
interest of good labour relations nor reasonable to infer that a representatlon based upon a
superficial examination that contradicted an earlier represeqtation and was revoked a short time
later was binding upOn the limon. See generally, Re Williams, ~, at 14-16, and 19-20
V. Conclusion
For the above reasons, we conclude that the prelImmary obJectlons to Junsdiction must
be dismissed. We will proceed WIth a hearing upon the merits of this case.
.
,.
~~.
~~ (
11
DATED at London, Ontario thIS 2nd day of
1995
s, Chairperson
./
I concur
'J- V\~ --....
I concur.
Douglas Montrose, Employer Member
,,".
". 4~~;~- m{.EVA~FORM- - $
._ ~__4"1!1 . ~~........~ _ _ ._.........._'W... ....:..--..'____.._~___.._.I....._
1 ST COpy TO B.E GIVEN TO MANAGEMENT AT STEP 1
NAME UifTNt:;' C~C/U"? I~~~NO. ~4.53
~~~~SS/ ~ 0" dO;;)-
~~NI /7 / e ~ (j I1de I ~
HOME TEL NO: (A~A rr ) s:. - ;) / j( I BUSINESS TEL NO: EXT ...;. / ~
CLASSIFICA TIONl ~ /J -r-r- -r. . .~,
CLASS TITLE r I..J , j..!../ DATE OF HIRE ..../ (.( I) ~ 4.(, i '-1'7 ('"'
POSITION TITt.e p ~ () fl G- e 7 y ,4 ~ S ~ s.s C,'~ HOURS OF WORK 3 G., ;..s;-
EMPLOYED BY r1:t S' ~ . t ,- . e SECTION OR /15 c-. -
(MINISTAYoCOlLEGE-oTHERI I v , n \. r-l 7 D't 1)-1 v1t.t r') C · DEPARTMENT"" 5-.e.:;; 5,7"1. 'Y It f
EMPLOYER'S 2 J ' C J . -I /" t\ ~ +-.
ADDRESS/STREET. I:J cr-.. J.. 11. d <::W 1 Y ok' ~ 0 ~ -:>
TOWN! z" il ~ \ POSTAL kin H. - 5
CITY C L 1'1. u.J A VIe' t'1 '-!. ___ C~DE V! ~.;;..
NAME OF .. ,.. NAME OF LOCAl. ... _ ..
=.:.....~~ .Lla.x{f.e. P~~~'f;;".:~_I.<'1 ~, lq~ I fY1
T//rI7 :j"j-!,tltJc DeNIED.."ffc. {;L_tl:;-S-/~(Cr7T/C,:' /u 4
;...~ ~,6&. (0 r: 1"7 pee; ~c..e ""'I~ ~__::k /// CC I~' }"'~d :..' c (i../ -/t,.1 tt/
o {: ;/i E... C (.,\i...LE' C 7', ~ 6 A G..-e-" ~e:-ITZE IV f/ ~ ,06 C. i /:' / ':: /9- L Y
&(,,/7 1V07 E x CLWS, .l,..-~ -../ A .crlcL.c: <...::; 4~O
j:J er I c.. J...c;.. \. SO" ,._.
I
...- .- .-- --.-. -........... -..-.., -,._---- ,--" -"'~ --~-_...._~ - "--'
~,~:~.~. .~~~~"'~~':~i~}~"/'~~7~.. ... ~-~7.~.~- .~. '~~;:E:.~'~~~:~~~
· To BE e~ - Cvl~ Ss ~ I G.c TO ~ ~.6J...c-"--_ CF.4
?,fOfJr:RTY /9.5: St: SS~K ~ €. Ft: ~Cr ; ,,'e( ,TLlJVE" II 19qj
o
SIGNATURE . 0/71 /'J I I ' / J - /7 Q ~
'- OF GRIEVO . I ~, Lk' ~.... '""<-<";'.-. ..,~DAiP~~ . ; I ~ ~
I HEREBY SUBMIT THE ABOVE GRIEVANCE TO' (PLEASE PRINT)
r;
MANAGEMENT OFFlCIALJNAME 150 POSITION.
SIGNATURE OF GRIEVOR OR # ..
UNION REPRESENTATIVE DATE
1S11n "tQNOE SlJIEET TCXL FREE {AREA 41" TOlL FREE (AREAS 511. 013. I 705)
TOROtnO.ONTAAIO......AZS ~7.ca Ta::l"'_ 1 c TEL: 1-aoo.ae-r.ms
-- -- -- ---
"'I
Schedule 2 (
,
---
., i
'I Local Appenclx I
" \
., Between i
i; Government of OntarJo and I
'I ,
:1 Ontario Public Service Employees Union I
:\ I
Ii I
I
, August 1, 1993 I
i
,
,
. The Sectoral Framework of August 1 1993 will be Implemented by this local
J
appendix.
~
2. Regarding the application at Article 4
Enhance rights of employees on surplus or released with recall rights as follows
(a) for surplus employees eXlstlnO collective agreement proVIsions continue
to apply up to the date at potential release and, in addition. to those
provISions, the following enhancements shall also be applicable
{i) enhancements as In ArtIcles 4 2 and 4 3 [Traimng), 47, 4 8. 4 9 ami
410 [Redeployment]. 4'1 and 4 16 [Temporary ASSIgnment}, 412
[Voluntary and Educational Leave of Absence}, 418 [Vacanc"
Management1, 4 19 [External Hiring Restric;tionsJ. 420 [Notics
Deferral]
(ii) commitment to reduce bargaining Unit backfill through the applicatioJl
of Articles 4 1 8 and 4 19 and the current provisions outJined In th\.'
collective agreement from .outside the unit
(iii) In theapptication ot Articles 4 15 and 4 16. the asszgnment of such
employee to afuU-time vacancy snail be made In' accordance with
'the provisions at the collective agreement
(iv) all permanent employees whose positions are declared surplus
during the life of this agreement shall be entitled to the notice
outlined in the collective agreement
(b) for released employees with recaU rights existina coilective agreement
provisIons continue to apply With the following enhancements
(i) enhancements as in Articles 4.4 [Job Security Fund]. 4 18 [Vacancy'
Management} and 4 19 [Extemal Hiring Restriction}
\
'~"
(
2
(II) extend recall rights to 24 months or the duration ot thlsagreemem
whIchever IS greater
(Ill ) recall by dIrect assignment through a secondary search for
permanent vacancIes stIll available aft~r surplus search IS
unsuccessful
(iv) recall rrghts extended for positions within 40 km of an employee 5
prevIous headquarters without regard to minIstry ~
(v) employee may elect to extend recall rights to one additional
geographic zone or province wide, in such case, employee must pay
for relocation and zone' selection cannot be changed once
consultation on assignment has begun
(vi) employees with recall rights may choose to be re-tramed or re-
educated at employer's expense tor tuition fee .and books for up to
2 years at a maximum of $5.000 at an approved Ontano institution.
The type of course is subject to UI approval if employee wishes to
receive UI and/or Job Security Fund benefits. Recall rights
undisturbed.
(vii) where because of the employee s re-trainmg or re-education
commitments the employee cannot meet an assignment's start date
to a recalled job. the employee may refuse that recall without
forfeiting recaU rights provided his/her decision is made before the
interview
(viii) an employee s profile tor direct assignment purposes will be kept
current with respect to the- employee's improved Qualifications after
completion. of re-training or re-education programs (onus on
employee to keep records current)
(c) an employee shall lose the enhancements in paragraphs (b) (ii) to (viii)
upon the earlier of- /
(i) the date he/she takes his/her severance pay;
(ii) having accepted a position he/she fails to report for duty Within 't\AlO
weeks of receiving written notice thereot. or with," such other tIme
frame specltied in the notice
"
- -
(
")
..J
(III) the oate me employee refuses a Joe otter under Direct Assignment
or
(IV) the expIry ot 24 months trom tne date ot the date of release or the
expiry of this agreement whlcnever IS later
In such event me normal recall provIsIons under the current collective
agreement shall apply unless they have been lost under Article 24 16 4
(d) In the application of ArtIcle 4 12 (1), where more employees wish the leave ~
than can be acccmmoda1ed at anyone tIme the decision Will be based on
senlonty
(e) The application ot Article 4 15 of the sectoral tramework shall not detract
from any rrghts which an employee with Job Offer Guarantee has under
Article 24 17 of the collectIve agreement.
(f) Nothmg In this local appendix authorizes mter-bargaining Unit redeployment.
(g) Employees currently on surplus shall be advised that the enhanced
redeployment provisions contained herem apply to them as appropriate.
3 Improve Voluntary Exit Opportunttlesto minimIze layoffs, increase redeployment
and recaU opportunities
(i) Factor 80 enhancements as In Article 7 1
(ii) Voluntary JOG buyout as In Article 7.2
(iii) Extension to pension entitlements as in Article 4 20
(iv) OPSEU's pro rata share of the next $40 Milfion of annual net savings
credited pursuant to Article 6 1 after $70 Million is credited as contemplated
In Article 7 4 (b) will be used to provide enhanced voluntary exit
opportunities for targeted groups otemployees who are represented by
OPSEU The Bargaining Unit Redeployment Committee wHl decide which
groups will be targeted so as to maximize redeployment and recall
opportunities for their members. and will make recommendations on the
design of the programs. The particulars of program design and costing will
be the responsibility of Management Soard of Cabinet. However, the above
decisio(Js of both the Bargaining Unit Redeployment Commrttee and
Management Board of Cabinet will ensure that all of the available money
IS used for voluntary eXit purposes. Such voluntary exit opportunities will
be implemented when the savmgs are realized.
i..~
.'0
{
4
4 Regardmg the application of Article 7 4
The tarQetto De met for the OPSEU bargaining unit IS $1.32 8 Million In each fiscaL
year The target IS to be met by uSing the measures below
1993/94 1994/95 1995/96
(a) voluntary unpaid leaves"
(b) merit step increases $142M $18 9 M $18 9 M
(c) classification grievance $20 M $40 M $40 M
moratorium
(d) Article 74 (a) $98 6 M $73 9 M $73 9 M
{overtime or up to i j.. days off in
first year, 9 in second and third
years}
(e) Article 74 (b) $50 1 M $50 i M $50 1 M
(waste and inefficiencies
potential offset)
. To be determined in accordance with Article 4 13
.. For the purposes 01 article 7 4 (d) the tnitial prorated payroll deduction will
be based on ten unpaid days tor 1993/94
The Artic!e 74 (a) savings will be achieved as follows
(i) voluntary leave as set out in Article 4 13
Oi} net annual savings from employees in classifications which have the right
to cash payments 10r overtime taking compensating leave in lieu of such
payouts for overtime worked. The compensating leave is to be taken In
accordance with the pnnciples in Article 13.6 of the collectIve agreement.
Time off is to be scheduled in such a manner that expected operational
requirements are met and that compensating time off will not. except in the
most unusuaJ situations, resutt in any replacement costs being generated.
To the extent possible. plans for the scheduling of time off shall be
developed jointly by the employees and loea! management.
I
I
J
I
(
:::
...
The total of the net annual savings trom an employee s compensating leave
hereunder will be credIted to the Dargalnlng unit s overall target rather than
being applied agamst the Indlvloual employee s reqUirement (If any) to take
days off
(III) partial or complete shutdown days as management may schedule to the
extent still reqUIred taking Into account the actual and expected
compensation savings generated under (i) and (If) abpve and Article 7 4 (b)
-
(iv) mdividual unpaId leave days to the extent still required atter application of
all the other measures
(v) where the employer and OPSEU agree that an emplqyee cannot contnbute
aU of the reqUIred days off because \t would impair critical operatIons of the
government, the Special Leave" provisions of the Social Contract Act Will
be used to the extent needed
5 The di$pute resoiutlon procedure In Article 9 4 shall apply equally to thiS local
appendix.
6 If a full time employee normally works a longer than regular work day, exciuding
overtime, In return for working fewer days in a year. the number of days referred
to in section 4 above shall be reduced by a proportionate amount.
7 The compensation improvements of the Ontario Police College settlement entered
into on June 11, 1993 with respect to ~ 992 and 1993 are not precluded by this
agreement.
S The pp.rtie? agree that all classification grievances under the Crown Employees
Coilect/va Bargaining Actor under a collectIve agreement between. the parties filed
by or on behalf of employees in the bargaIning unit of public servants represented
by the Union tor which a deciSion of the Grievance Settlement Board has not been
rendered by August 1. 1993 are withdrawn effective August 1. '993 and the
parties shall take no steps to further any such grievance or any hearing of such
a glievance and shall taKe no steps to enforce any decision otthe Board pertainmg
to any such grievance after August 1, '993.
9 The parties agree they shall take -no steps to further any classification grievances
under the Crown Employees Collective Bargarning Act or under a collective
agreement between the parties filed atter August 1, 1993. except tor any
classification gnevances In respect at a new classification system In which such
grievances are expressiy allowed.
r;;.
(
6
'0 For the 'purposes of thIs agreement and In partIcular paragraphs 5 and 6 above
classification gnevances Includes but IS not limited to
(a) all gnevances claiming Improper classification of persons classltied wIthIn
the Office and AdminIstratIon Group of the classlticatlon system at the
Employer
(b) all gnevances claimIng Improper classification of persons Wlthm the
classification system of the Employer In which part of the settlement desired
IS the making at a new classification or classification. standard and
~
(c) all grievances claiming improper classification of persons within the
classification systerTloTtRe emplOyer in which part of the settlement desired
IS the reclas~fic;mion of the gnevor or grievorS-to an existIng classification
st~dard that properiy applies to him. her o~ them.
-
1 1 For purposes of clarity only. and wIthout affecting paragraph 5, the withdrawal of
grievances in paragraph 5 does not affect those grievances tor which the
Grievance Settlement Board has rendered a deCIsion before August 1. 1993 or to
the salary ranges that may be set by agreement of the parties or by arbitration
under Article 5.8 of the collective agreement resulting from a deCision of the
Grievance Settlement Board before August 1, 1993.
12. Where a deCJsion of the Board or agreement or arbitration under Article 5.8 of, the
collective agreement referred to in paragraph. 8 does not affect all of the
employees at a level in a class .standard, the result of that decision, agreement or
arbitration shall be extended to an employee not otherwise affected by that
decision, agreement or arbitration where that employee has duties and'
responsibilities that are identical to employees who were lhe subject of the
decision, agreement or arbitration.
13 The Bargaining Unit Overhaul, which Will establish a new c1assific'ation system will
commence within thirty days of ratification and will be completed by December 31,
1994 The employer agrees to commit the sum of $20,000.00000 for the
Bargaining Unit Overhaul.
-..
~ > . --
(, v
Schedule 3
______~4__._..
\
August 12, 1993
Ms Diane Theoret
Box 202
Alexandria, Ontario
KOC 1AO
-
Dear Ms Theoret
I am writing in response to your grievance, which I received as
~he Deputy Minister's designee at stage 2 of the grievance
procedure, in which you alleged that you have been -denied
reclassification to the property Assessor 3 level contrary to
Articles A and 50 of the Collective Agreement I met with you
and your representative on July 27, 1993, to enquire into the
circumstances surrounding your grievance
II is your position tha-c Man~ement-' s fai) nre t-o r~l.a_~~~You
on June 1, 1993 violated Article Aof the Collective ~eem~~n
that you were discriminated against because of being on pregnancy
and paren~~l leave-of-aDsence from July 27, 1992 to January~~
1993 I-c J.s also your posi-c:l.on that failure to be reclassifil!d:-'
on June 1, 1993 violated Article 50 6 1 of the Collective
Agreement and Section 38 f (3b) (revised to 43 (3b)) of the
Employment Standards Act which in essence states that an
employee, upon return to work from pregnancy or parental leave,
shall be reinstated to her former position and at the wages she
would be earning had the employee worked throughout the leave
Your Union representative also contends that the performance
appraisal covering the period January 1 to December 31, 1992
indicates you are performing your duties satisfactorily and
therefore supports raclas~irlcation tv t~~ Pro~~rty A$&~s&or :
level
Management responded to your concerns by outlining the Property
Assessor Career Path program and by stating that you were denied
reclassification to the Property Assessor 3 level because of
insufficient qualifications It is Management's position that
all employees must be qualified to perf9~~_!h~re~Uire~~~ts of
trie var:l.OUS levels. ot a property Assesso.~__J:u:___any._other.- position
before being reclassrE.rea-~--tllerefore, you are being treated
equally and not in a ctlscrl'm:l.natory rnanne-r---Ir1s--alsO-- .----.-
.-.
/2
i
I
I
.i':o;
(
- 2 -
Management's position that upon your return to work. on February
1, 1993 you were paid at the third step in the Property Assessor
2 salary range which allows for your December 1, 1992 merit
increase and is the salary you would be earning had you worked
throughout the maternity and parental leave-of-absence In
addition, Management stated that your performance'evaluation for
the period January 1 to December 31, 1992 is for work being
performed at the Property Assessor 2 level and that you are
demonstrating potential for advancement
It is my decision there has been no violation of the Collective
Agreement and that you were denied reclassification as you have
not fully met the requirements for advancement to the Property
,Assessor 3 level under the provisions of the Property Assessor ~
JCareer path Accordingly, your grievance is denied
If you are not satisfied with my dec~sion, you may apply to the
Grievance Settlement Board within fifteen days of ,receipt of this
letter for a hearing of your grievance
Yours truly,
I
/, ,II / {/t/tll~ ,! ~ '-
~ i ;! h,-,,~
- . i
D Hillman
Designee for the Deputy Minister
b c c D Palozzi
E C Farragher
D Gagnon
A Stead
\
.~~ ( 1v
O?S2J
Schedu.le 4
o N T AR I 0 . ~ ----.-....
PUBLIC
SERVICE
EMPLOYEES .~ -2
U N I 0 N 6 December 1993
-1A.- -
OPSEU File #: 93G2a2
~ .-
SYND/CAT DES GSB File #: , -
,
--
EMPLOYE-E-S DE
LA FONCTION Ms. Joan Shirlow
PUBlIQUE bE, Registrar
Grievance Settlement Board
L ONrA.~!O lao ~~das Street West
S2J?O suite 2100
Toronto, Ontario
MSG lZ8
Dear Ms. Shirlow:
Re: Correction of Grievance, THEORET, Diane, Local 453
~1list:ry of pinance
ClassificatioD
Grievance Dated June 17, 1993
Please be advised that the above mentioned grievance was
sent to arbitration with the following error, Issue as
Classification. The correct information is, the Issue a-s
Classification/Article-A.
"to'
We haVe amended our records and we ask that you do the same.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Yours truly,
/ ~ ~,.
~
/ ~ LtJ ., -,' ('_f.
4'51 (Nick Luczay
( I - Grievance Officer --p fP F/9~ L.A9 ~ )-/tr n..
cc: Deputy Minister
'Ministry of Finance
Diane Theoret
Allan Stead, OPSEU Staff Representative
100 lESMlU ROAD Roaney Pilgrim, Local President
NORTH YORK. ONTARIO
- M3B3P8 -
TEL (416) 443-8888
FAX 443-9670
'" '. · t
.OPSEU i Schedule 5
o N T ^ R t 0 March 10 1994
PUBLIC
S E R V Ice oPSSJ fie No: 93G282
EM P l 0 ~ e e.5 Ms Joan Shlrtow. Reglatrar .I'
U N ION Grievance Setdement Board 1
, A , 12100.. 180 Dundas Street West I
- a..~' Toronto, Ontario
, " ;. M5G 128
SYNCICATOES .-.. -..-.....
---.---.- -.. .---.-- .-..... .-.....-....-
eMPl"OViss'ce'. -D~ar ~;~-;;~;.
LA FONCTlON
PUaLlQUE DE Rs: OPSBJ and Uinlatryaf Finance ~
l'ON"'tAR'O ~liC8ofDl8ne_~ .'___. . _ _~ ._,. __
- ~0 a ThJ_. - . ~ Sa d -..~. "'6 1993 ~...IA.&. .'4 ,~J
,.. . .,..... aa mittel' ~~r, '!~./ttle 8fi _~'lIl!,,"'':i_~uve ~ , CHJw.-.l:,l.U~ ~
- ,.~~ covering letter deScribed 1t as .. classification grievance. M such. it Is meaty
that the Board concfuced It was not to be sGhedulad far hearing because of
f -:.. -- -! -- thia moritorlum on claDtftcation grievances under the SoCial ContraCt A~
~, ., - .. In ~g;...Lam advI8ed that the teal Issue In thIs grievance is one of
~, - I ~ diScrfmtQ,t!on and as such, would not be captUrud by the general withdraws!
. ~ .,.............. ~ -----.....
~ or .mO,'I"UIIWII_ .' -
> .. '- "I ~
I , r- -4' ""
J ~ f beJiev, that there is, Jo, fact. a reference to an alleged violation of Schedule
A - ,Dlticrlmlnatlorr on the face of the grievance and that the replies to the
~ontt Step 2 deal-with the ~ve of discrimfnatlon, so, there can be no ,
___..~ question thatJ.,lnaon IS attempting to alter tt18 CVJtUr"lI of the grievance so 8S .
1 ~ to escape 'the provisions of the Social Contract. Under th~ circumstances, ,
· , .. I am requesting that the matter be considered for schedu6ng in the usual
!~ .. manner.. ~
~,...
Yours truly,_ "
...1 J ..!.. i .. ~~
.~~
' .-. .--
, . .. - .-. ...- - ," ,.
- .. .. . ~- _. ...
"
George Rlcherds "
senior Grievance OffiCer - - - .-
,r _ ~
ppf
cc: Henry Brugma -
Olane Theoret
DeputY Minister. Ministry of vmance
100 LESMlLRo;o ~
NOmHYOtK. ~IO
-. M3U:Jl'6 -
n:J ~ /4!61.uU888
FAX .u3-967O .
.
--- -----
--
~ ( --
.. OPSEU (- {j C(
ON TAR I C Sc!,e~~le 6
PUILIC
Sf_Vie. . "
BMPLOYIIII 26 October 19904-
\.INION ~I
-A - Ms..1oan ShfrlOW OCT 2 & jllc
WNCIICAT on R8815trar
~ DC Grievance Settlement Board CROIW B6t0y,s:cs .-..---
--- --- .-----.SUfUt~'OOT"t~.west --.-- mvevAHcl!'~,,,!,,
IA fONC'IlON Taromo, Onrarto DC;.,#-
"U.~lGU' DI M50 lZ8
1,'0"';0""..0
S illO- Dear MLShlrlow:.. _ ... _ _. - _...-
- .Y1 '(rttriNt~ ~. .' ...~ 9l\.'~~-:"' ".~ft. "f, " ~
__ -.'V..~ _ _'-"~ ,., .", _ .., _.~~..,'t;;~
: ~\; . I- ..",. ..... · ~ -~_. .
PlUM sc:hedule u" gritNlnCeS Jisted bdaw at the next available opl'Ol'tUnfty.
........ .r-'
r
.:.~, ';i-r 1. DIane Theo~ OPSfU n!Q2~ CSB t1674lDl
. '-;I' Daze of Apptfcatim: lltt16191- ~....
. , 'flnl'l. 1. \ II"
./ _' 2. Mcfhee. Solicitor Cennl.. OPSEU ~ 1 B 18!. C51l ~~. T oJ 7.. 't ~ l.1
. .. ~.. .-~.FAppllcation: Q.C/nr'93
. _ ,;,. 1 :.fJ:};..I.'.J,.,. :.
...~ ,......
~ ~ Thank-you for your assIDnC8 ,n thf. matter. f. '- ,-,...."..-,.,.. .-. .
-.. J '. Yours v~ bulv,
-;-.- ~.. -
~ .
.. "'" -r.... "
. \ " . ... <.. .
. . "'e' . of; L( ,. "!:' ~
.. A~. Cavin Iieb.... - - -,. ...... '
~ - F c;rlliWftCa otI'Icer
· CiUbb
..._ _.ll
~. Shmy Bader
. Henry '" ru8frll /. " ~ ~ r
I
,
1OOtr:W.LI~
NOmf"fOllll:, ~
- MUaN -
'I'Q: f4'" ~
QX~
---.-- -- -...., - -. -... -- ----.-- -. -- -- -- - ...
I
I
, -\0.."" - .
'tJ~, . . ~lLneU~~t
Facsimile Tr(UlS~sion TTransmissloL_ par telecopieur
MInlstry of Finance I MlIllstere des Finances
Human Resources Branch I Dlrectlon des ressources humames
2nd Floor 33 Kmg St W I 2C etage 33 rue Kmg 0
Oshawa ON LIH 8H5
Fax Number I NO de telecopleur 905-433-6588
Telephone Number I NO de telephone. 905-433-6092
-
-
Date I Date . JJ V Ja-, (3. E.R 9 i tj9 4
To / Destinatalre : CL-\ FP vJ (01)(<.ow
. (l.fl0) .4-lf~ -36 t <6
Fax I Telec. :
From I Expechteur(trlce) . k'SrJ UG\6BIE.
RE I OBJET : $ )..0 M \. L.t..\ or-J L-l ((
FoR S;QM~ ~~o.J WoE:- 60TH t+P,. \) '"D+ l ~ -As A P<<,of'e~~ rr~rC~S"\J1C 3
G ~ ~A-rJc.e. IT SHOu.u) (..l)~ O~ ~ P tt 3 l-l r(t r-l6 -n+e ~ ,-,-Stir 0 J
IS "i\o~s. tT"" Go o,J \l.r€. P.A. d I..-l rrl~(A 0(<,.. UOC$ \"\ 60 TO
A-Ae. \T(Z.AII tJ J o~ J..;,J\A.~'1 ~< ) ( 't!1~ 7 Pt..-G-A ~E. A.)VI s-e NY
.:bJ\JJ\ (<,~ I <1.. (305) Lf~3-c.,'1.QJ
.
Number of pages to follow I Nombre de pages a swvre . 3
Please confirm receipt I Veulllez confirmer receptlon tJO
Please contact the above number if documents do not tranSmit cleariy ot completely
Veulllez nons contacter au num~ro ci-dessus si les documents ne sont pas diffus~s clairement et completement.
-- -
0 ~
!~ (
Schedule 8
_..__...:._...0__..____.. ___..,
FROM: BACCHUS, KAY (K BACCHUS)
To: K CRIBBlE -
DATE: THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1994 11:48 AM
SUB" ECT: PHONE MESSAGE FROM CLIFF WOODROW
[*] Te:lEPHONED [ ] PLEASE CALL
[ ] WILL CALL AGAIN r ] RETURNED YOUR CALL
[ ] WANTS TO SEE YOU r ] CAME TO SEE YOU
[ ] URGENT
SAYS THAT DIANE THORETIS INCLUDED IN THE 20 MILLION
..0-
-----
-
'\
-,.
1~... ...
~ \
l.Il
Z
~
~
...
t
:l:
W.
Ul ::>
:.: .",
~ ~
"l cz: '"
a:;. .. i- 0 ,... _"
CJ'l III ..., M
~ C ~ 0
<( 4: '" <(
~ < ~'" CD ~ :
~ ~ ~
, 0
:c tI) CI) M.......
,.., :;,,.., C""t Z M
<( 2: 4: 4: "'~ 0 <(
l>. '" "" "" )0 "" t: '"
2: ~w.z5 z,., <( :z;
.... ~o....":) _~ ~ ....
l>. ;i,,"~ _; - 0.
::> :l: :::l :::l .c.l ::> < t: :::l
C ;:'QQf-o 03: 3: Q
t:n-
= ::J'l ("'" '" t..O I.D => _ IJ) ~ -. f" \J"i -= t"-:D...... ~ N 0 \0 ~ ~ ("'0 (tJ
~~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ N ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ N ~ N ~ ~~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~
<( -
Q) ..,=CI)~c:D...-4C12a:1CJ)N a:lO\M~""O:>""'~-OC!)C:OOCl):D_:a
U tJ'CD:JO""'c:o:7'\CJ)Cl:la):"I CI:I.2)O\a:lC\Q)~O'\~O"\Q)CDc1\CD:DO"I:D
C 0\0"10"10'10\0\0\0'10\ 0\0\0\0"IC1l~~3'I"'0":/'IO\CI"IO"I:1\0'\'"
1 ra~ ~ ~ :: ~ ::: ~ .::: .::: ~.::: .::: ~ ~ ~ ~ .:: .:: .::: .::: .::: ~ ~ ~ .::: ~ ::: ~
?It:I CD Ln N .. NO:" \.n In Q Ln.... r-- ~ .., VI c7\ _ f' _ ~ ("4; l.I' "'" r"" \0 ,;.}
! ~~ N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N ~ ~ M Q N N ~ N 0 ~ ~ N N ~ 0 0
j ~ .......................................................................... .............................................................................................................................
,.~ N....tN\QNNf'N.......~ ....t""*\QNIol'\...-(.".J'\N~Q)N....._OLf'):;J
, - O....t ~ 0 ....... ~ 0 ....t ~ ~ .... 0 0 .... 0 _ COO 0 a ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~
0'\1
I
Q.lj - .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ % : ~ z ~ ~ ~ :::: ~
~. .:; CI) ~ .., N :"I 0 0\ ::I' """ 0\ N = N f"'" N 0\ .,. N ::: 'f1' .., .:) ,..., 0\ cD r-- . ..... "'"'
P-j. > "'0 ~ I Co <( It 0 It "= U <( al Z al "= tl '" Q "= ;:; O. ..J 0, U '" <( '" <( '" It
.... ....-....NO"IO'IQO"I NC:OO'\ 0\_ O"IO\l'""ICl'\,...O\;:N.....~.....O"IOO"lc1\OC1\
.~~ m 0"1 a) CD < CD 0'\ = CI) CD _ c:D c:D 0"1 <<I C\ ~ ~ 0\ ~ < ~ ~ ~ CD ~ = ~
Q.li l:l'::
,.c::1 (.) tJ .,..
,\j ~ C ",. \C ..... .,. \0 . = . .. CD fPI CD ~ t'PI .. \D M 0\ -.r; '::) 0 0 "" ... ::0 ,lJ M ('II
W ~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ . M .. M ~ "" ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ . M 0 "" ~ M N
~- [;,., .9 t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:5 ~ ~ 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ;; ~ ~ ~ ~ ;; ~ ~ ; ;
.. '"
l~~
:1:.....
o ~
.. 0
foo
~ ~ ~ Z
M ~ 0 " ~
.. CIl > :z: 0
........... OJ 0::
m~~~ _ ~
a 0 )of lD ~ .... C/) . ~..-4
.....~III It _ a: .,.. - ':': '" ~ Z f-o
.... oJ Ul Z N Z U tu :z; '" :i f-o. U i' 0:!5 .,.. =:
o _ = $(. !3 a: g i ;; 2i - ;: ~ ~ ~ 1ii g 12 5 0: ~ 8 5
e ~ oJ ~ ~ tu oJ U ~ ..J ~ 0 3 oJ Q ~ a: ~ oJ ~ ~ = U
8 ; 8 ~ 5 S ~ ~ ~ ~ f-o 5 < ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 0: ~ ~ = 3 ~;
~ 0 0: 0: Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul ~ Ul f-o f-o f-o > 3 3: 3: ~ '" 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ al ~
I j
C
o
....
... ,
III '" .
tJ
~l~ ~
.... 0 0
~ en :.n
III Ul l.Il
II l>l '"
.. CI) Ul
U I ~ :2
~I~ ~
OJ a:: 0:
w '"
~ ~
o 0
0: 0:
~ ~
en I
~,~ .... ~ .-.; .... ~ pol ..... -f,.., r1 ~ .... --4 .... .... _ "'" .... .... ,... .... ... .... .... ~ ...
...
II)
~
. ... ,
'" '"
'" ...
.. c
...,
> :t
; , i
.. =
-a..
"
...
c: ., a... ~ ~ .. U'1 ... '. ~ 0.... 1"'4 "" . '" ... 0\ 0 ... ,.. "" .. \1\ \8
.... '" 0 ,... ,.,. M N ,..,. N ........,... I!'I -,.. ,., 1'1'\ ,.,,., ~,..~. __ .. . .. .. .. .
w _ ~ _ . _ _ _ . . .. ~.. ....... _ . . . .. . . <. .. . . .
/' ~ unlar ~ J
'J;~ , ( t
....
Schedule 10 ..
. ~-..;\.A--_._"'-- -Ja.......__........ ..'--';',,--,--- ....~. .
l
Ministry Ministere 33 King Street West 33 rue Kino ouest
of des Oshawa ON L 1 H 8H5 Oshawa ON L 1 H 8H5
Finance Finances Tel. No (905)433-6901
Fax No.. (905)433-6588
BY FAX
November 17, 1994
Ms. Joan Shirlow, RegIstrar
Gnevance Settlement Board ~
180 Dundas Street West
Swte 2100
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 128
Dear Ms. Slurlow'
Re: OPSEU (Theoret) and Ministry of Finance
G.S.B. #1674/93, OPSEU File 93G282
Hearing: Date: Januarv 25, 1994
The partles have agreed that the above-noted gnevance falls withm the proVlsIons of the
local agreement to the SOCIal Contract Sectoral Framework regardmg classrlicanon cases.
Therefore It wIll not be necessary to have a heanng and your file may be closed.
;;-d7 .
K.B CribbIe
Labour RelatIons Consultant
Human Resources Branch
ce. Chff Woodrow, OPSEU
Kick Luczay, OPSEU
Dems Gagon
Don Chlro
751 I93-QJ
- - - -