Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Radvak 93-10-20
Art Gallery of Ontario and OPSEU, Local 535 (Radvak), Re, 1993 CarswellOnt 6866 1993 CarswellOnt 6866 Copyright © Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved.1 1993 CarswellOnt 6866 Ontario Arbitration Art Gallery of Ontario and OPSEU, Local 535 (Radvak), Re 1993 CarswellOnt 6866 In the Matter of an Arbitration between Art Gallery of Ontario and Ontario Public Service Employees Union and Its Local 535 - Grievance of Liana Radvak M. Teplitsky Member, Gary Majesky Member, Mary Beth Currie Member Judgment: October 20, 1993 Docket: None given. Counsel: David Wright, On Behalf Of The Union John Brooks, Dorothy Harpell, On Behalf Of The Company Subject: Labour; Public Headnote Labour and employment law M. Teplitsky Member: 1 Article 17.04(a) permits provides that: "(a) The Gallery will lay off employees in reverse order of seniority provided those employees retained have the required skill, ability and physical capacity to perform the work. Similarly, an employee who has been laid off may displace an employee with less seniority provided the senior employee has demonstrated the ability and has the qualifications to perform the duties of the job." 2 The grievor was displaced pursuant to this Article. It is alleged the senior employee did not have the ability and qualifications to perform the duties of the job. 3 There was significant conflict in the evidence. 4 I accept the evidence of Miss Harpell in preference to the evidence of other witnesses, principally, because Miss Harpell prepared the job description and had the most accurate understanding of what the job required. In her opinion, Ms. Marsh met the threshold requirements of the position. 5 The evidence of Maia Sutnik, the grievor's Supervisor, reflected her preference for a job definition which included duties and tasks which would have required, in all probability, a higher classification than the position was awarded. I think she was influenced by the qualifications of the grievor, which were more than the basic job required and who, in addition, was a superior employee. 6 In the result, the Union has failed to persuade me, on a balance of probabilities, that the employer breached Article 17.04(a) in making its decision. Gary Majesky Member: Art Gallery of Ontario and OPSEU, Local 535 (Radvak), Re, 1993 CarswellOnt 6866 1993 CarswellOnt 6866 Copyright © Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved.2 7 I concur Mary Beth Currie Member: 8 I concur End of Document Copyright © Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved.