HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-1941.Vassallo.94-06-09
~
-~
?)
.. ONTARIO EMPLQYtS DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DEI.'ONTARIO
- GRIEVANCE CPMMISSION DE
11111 SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
- BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. M5G lZ8 rHEPHONEITEl:EPHONE (476) 326-1388
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 2100 TQRONTO (ONTARIO) M5G 7Z8 FACSIMILE ITELltCOPIE (416) 326-1396
I
1941/93
IN THE HATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN , OPSEU (Vassallo)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Correctional Services)
I
Employer
BEFORE: B. Fisher Vice-Chairperson
i
\
FOR THE K. Lawrence
GRIEVOR Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees
Union
FOR THE M. Mousley
EMPLOYER Grievance Administration Officer
Ministry of the Solicitor General
& Correctional Services
\
HEARING: May 20, 1994
............ -.~,i" -~.~...... ...-~._., -- - ....... -~'- '--ry...,:;J':'"'....,.........~
, ,j -"
'i
~ .
1
This case involves an allegation that for the period from
February 1990 to September 1991, the Grievor was pai4 according to
the wrong wage scale
The Employer raised as preliminary objection to the
grievance in which they claimed that the issue had already been
litigated in a previous award by Vice-Chair Charney dated June 30,
1993, involving the same Grievor Even though Article 27 18 8 of
the Collective Agreement state~ that "Decisions reached through
this Expedited Arbitration process shall have no precedential
value," this does not prevent the Employer from raising a res
judicata defence
In essence, the Union is claiming that they want the
Charney award to apply to a date prior to the date set by
Mr Charney, which was from his date of hire as a classified
employee The Union wants it to apply to the date he re-entered
the employ of the Ministry, a date which is 17 months earlier.
At the hearing, I gave oral reasons upholding the
preliminary objection and dismissing the grievance The reasons
for my decision are as follows
J ;I
'- '..:"- --.i-":'_-=-~:c..r::;'.--:::S2::7_~ r....:,.o?-~~~..,.n:.~1::.r~..".~!l..~:r[~?1'l:.JJ,!t: '."':""r::..iI'j,"":?~J!:-~;r;""~!dI::mr:~i-r ~3l',:'1:;X~::-.r;,-:' --. ~ ...:-1..."': ..:..-: -- "' ~ --~fr;~:-:: I
-.
-
;,
~--~
ii
I
2
1 The Union could have asked the earlier retroactive date
at the Charney hearing and chose not to do so
,
2 The Union is not claiming that the Charney award was
wrongly decided; thus, I cannot utilize this case to
overrule the Charney case
3. I was not provided with any.convincing evidence that the
Union was in any way mi~led by the Employer at the
Charney case as to whether or not a practice existed in
the Ministry which would support the Grievor's claim for
retroactivity back to the date he r~-entered the
Ministry's employ
4 In essence, the Gri~vor is aSking me to amend the Charney
award, which of _course I cannot do The charney award is
quite clear that the increases were to be effective from
th~ date the employee became a classified employee, and
no sooner.
5 Presumably, the Union now seeks to introduce evidence of
a past practice of the Employer which would justify a
finding that the Grievor should have received the larger
wage effective the date of his re-employment However,
there was no explanation from the Union as to why they
"'- '- -~ i.!.~'..~c_--":!::'"'; :r.-:-~'=:r:,-L"''''' ...., -:-......." ""-;;," -.~- - -- ,y.~.-~:;:'~3~;-'~-;~" - -..... .--:....r.'~'.-:r::-_...
--
---- - ----- ------
.-:~ --~
} --.
... ':' {.... /
3
could not have brought out this evidence at the time the
charney case was first pres~nted.
The grievance is dismissed
\
I
I
i
I
Dated this 9th day of June, 1994
c
i
BARR,! BISHER - VICE CHAIRPERSON
7/
f
I
I
I
I
)
I
\