HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-0414.MacPherson et al.00-05-12 Decision
o NTARW EMPU) YES DE LA COURONNE
CROW"! EMPLOYEES DE L '()NTARW
GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
. . SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 600 TORONTO ON M5G 128 TELEPHONElTELEPHONE, (416) 326-1388
180 RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 600 TORONTO (ON) M5G 128 FACSIMILElTELECOPIE. (416) 326-1396
GSB # 0414/94
OPSEU # 94D491
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano Pubhc Service Employees Uruon
(MacPherson et a~
GIievor
- and -
The Crown m RIght of Ontano
(Mirusm of Commuru~ and SOCial Services)
Employer
BEFORE FehcI~ D Bnggs Vice ChaIr
FOR THE Peggy Snnth
GRIEVOR Counsel
Ehot, Snnth
Bamsters & Sohcltors
FOR THE Yasmeena Mohamed
EMPLOYER Counsel
Legal Services Branch
Management Board Secretanat
HEARING Ma, 2, 2000
ThIS proceedIng anses from the gnevance of Holly MacPherson dated November 15
1993 allegIng dIscIplIne by way of a letter dated November 4 1993 and on the basIs of
workload.
A heanng was convened on May 3 2000 whereIn the partIes made submISSIOns At the
commencement of the heanng, counsel for the Employer raised a prelImInary ObjectIOn
regardIng the arbItrabIlIty of the gnevance SpecIfically the Employer took the pOSItIOn
that the letter dated November 4 1993 was not dIscIplInary In nature It was merely a
confirmatIOn of a meetIng held between the gnevor and her manager whereIn the
manager commumcated hIS concerns vis a vis the gnevor's work performance regardIng
the Student Placement Program. The Employer was submItted that the letter was never
placed In the gnevor's personnel file and therefore not dISCIplInary In support of ItS
pOSItIOn, the Employer relIed number of earlIer deCISIOns of the Gnevance Settlement
Board.
With respect to the above, the Umon contended that the letter was dISCIplIne because
there was an actual transfer and removal of dutIes from the commIttee By actIng on that
letter the Employer has made the letter dISCIplInary In nature As a remedy the Umon
sought a declaratIOn that the Employer has breached the collectIve agreement and
requested that the letter dated November 4 1993 be removed from the gnevor's file
The Employer submItted that the letter dated November 4 1993 has never been placed on
the gnevor's file and therefore the remedy IS moot. With respect to the second allegatIOn,
the Employer takes the pOSItIOn that the Issue of workload arrangement cannot be
categonzed as dISCIplInary The Umon recogmzed that the gnevor dId not gneve
harassment or VIOlatIOn of any other proVISIOns of the collectIve agreement. However the
Umon asked the Board to reVIew the arrangement based on the gnevor's prevIOUS
relatIOnshIp WIth her supervISor
As eVIdence the partIes have agreed to tender the letter dated November 4 1993 and
requested the Board, upon reVIew of same, make a determInatIOn as to whether the letter
was dIscIplInary If It IS not dISCIplIne, the Board lacks jUnSdIctIOn to hear and decIde the
matter
After consIderatIOn of thIS matter I must find that the letter dated November 4 1993 IS
not dISCIplIne It contaIned none of the common elements found In letters of dIscIplIne
and It was never placed In the gnevor's file AccordIngly I lack the jUnSdIctIOn to
determIne thIS matter I am also WIthout jUnSdIctIOn to determIne the Issue of the alleged
alteratIOn of the gnevor's workload In the CIrcumstances of thIS case There was no
allegatIOn of harassment on the face of the gnevance nor was the matter raised as such.
For those reasons, the gnevance IS dIsmIssed.
Dated In Toronto thIS 12th day of May 2000
~~
,l
FelICIty D Bnggs