HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-1684.Colquhoun&Francis.97-03-03
~-----
~
.- - -.'
I OfolTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
I CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'OfolTARIO
GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
1111 SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO ON M5G 1Z8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE (416) 326-1388
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST. BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ON) M5G 1Z8 FACS/MILEI7-ELECOPIE (416) 326-1396
GSB # 1684/93
OPSEU # 93G297-8
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Colquhoun/Francis)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of ontario
(Ministry of Finance)
Employer
BEFORE B Fisher Vice-Chairperson
FOR THE K. Lawrence
GRIEVOR Grievance Officer
ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE A Hoad
EMPLOYER Counsel
Legal Services Branch
Management Board Secretariat
HEARING February 26, 1997
--
- 2 -
This is a case under the expedited procedure involving an issue of Pay
Administration under Article 5 1 3 of the 1992 to 1993 Collective Agreement involving a
determination of the correct "anniversary date" for promotional increase purposes
I find that the Grievors were qualified for promotion as of June 15, 1992 from the
position of Property Assessor 2 to Property Assessor 3 I also find that the Ministry set
their "date of promotion" as July 1, 1992, as it was consistent with its practice to tie the
promotion date to the "anniversary date"
In effect, the Union is grieving the Ministry's decision to set a "promotion date"
which is later than the earliest time in which the Grievors became qualifieD to assume
the P A3 position
I have some doubt if the issue of setting the promotion date is even grievable,
however if it is, then certainly the scope of arbitral review is not one of correctness, but
at best reasonableness.
Assuming that the GSB has the authority to .review a decision of this matter,
which I am expressly not deciding, I am satisfied that the decision of the Ministry to set
- --
July 1, 1992, being the Grievers anniversary date, as the "promotion date" instead of
some earlier date was a reasonable one for the following reasons.
:"i:
,
- 3 -
1 There is a two-year qualifying period in order to move up to the P A3
classification, therefore the end of the two-year period is my definition always
around the same time as the employee's anniversary date
2 This practice is consistently applied to all other people moving from the P A2
to the P A3 classification
3 The only exception to this rule was with respect to a 'co-worker of the
Grievors, however I am satisfied that this was a result of an administrative
error and not a conscious decision to deviate from an established practice
4 The delay in effective date of promotion was only 25 days, which is
reasonable
The grievance is therefore dismissed
As a final note, I understand the frustration of Ms Colquhound and Ms Francis
with the result of this award, which effectively means that they are deprived of a
-
significant amount of money simply because their anniversary date of July 1, 1993 was
a very short time before the Social Contract Act came into effect. As a result of this,
!
l~
- 4 -
~
they were deprived of a merit increase which a fellow co-worker received, when they all
were in identical circumstances. However, I cannot let this affect Il1Y decision as to
whether or not an action taken by the Ministry 12 months earlier was reasonable, as the
I
reasonableness of the decision must be judged as of the time that the decision was
1
made, not with 20/20 hindsight.
Dated at Toronto this 3RD day of March, 1997