Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-1701.Group Grievance.00-02-28 Decision o NTARW EMPU)Y]ks 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 # 1701/96 2131/96 0080/97 0410/97 0411/97 OPSEU# 96A431 96A665 97A147 97D665 97D666 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano Pubhc ServIce Emplovees UnIOn (Group Gnevance, Clapperton) GIievor - and - The Crown m RIght of Ontano (Mimsm of the SohcItor General and Correctional ServIces) Employer BEFORE Ken Petrvshen Vice ChaiT FOR THE RIchard Blair GRIEVOR Counsel R, der Wnght, Blair & Do, Ie Barrtsters & SohcItors FOR THE Len Marvv EMPLOYER Counsel Legal ServIces Branch Management Board Secretanat HEARING Febl1lal) 10 2000 2 DECISION In a decIsIOn dated March 12, 1999 I allowed gnevances whIch claimed that the Employer contravened ArtIcles 31 7 1 of the CollectIve Agreement by not paYIng the 2% benefit to certaIn unclassIfied employees I remaIned seIzed of the gnevances to deal wIth any ImplementatIOn or compensatIOn Issues that the partIes were unable to resolve, as well as certaIn deferred Issues These latter Issues related to retroactIvIty and focused on how far back employees wIll be compensated and on whether non-gnevors would receIve a retroactIve payment. ThIS matter came back on for heanng on February 10 2000 At that tIme, the Umon expressed a number of concerns, chIef among them beIng that unclassIfied employees In some Mimstnes were stIll not beIng paid the 2% benefit pursuant to the March 12, 1999 decIsIOn. The Employer advIsed that the unclassIfied employees affected by the decIsIOn In four Mimstnes receIved the 2% benefit shortly after the decIsIOn Issued and contInue to receIve It. With respect to two Mimstnes whIch use a consIderable number of unclassIfied employees, the Employer IndIcated that It has encountered consIderable admInIstratIve dIfficulty In determInIng who IS entItled to receIve the 2% benefit and how much they are owed. The Employer IS In the process of hmng addItIOnal staff, findIng them extra space and develoPIng a computer program to address ItS admInIstratIve problem The Employer agrees that all unclassIfied employees entItled to receIve the payment, who have not yet receIved It, wIll get the 2% benefit, wIth Interest. 3 After meetIng to attempt to resolve the outstandIng Issues, the partIes agreed to an Interest formula and they agreed to contInue to attempt to resolve the retroactIvIty Issues, faIlIng whIch they would argue the legal Issues concernIng retroactIvIty at a heanng on Apnl 11 2000 When the heanng resumed In the early afternoon, the UnIon made a motIOn that I dIrect the Employer to forthwIth pay the 2% benefit to all those unclassIfied employees who were entItled to receIve It after the decIsIOn Issued In March 1999 After entertaInIng submIssIOns from the partIes on thIS motIOn, I orally ruled at the heanng that It would not be appropnate to make such a dIrectIOn In the CIrcumstances Although one can apprecIate the frustratIOn of the UnIon, the Employer has agreed that all of the unclassIfied employees entItled to the 2% benefit pursuant to the decIsIOn dated March 12, 1999 wIll receIve theIr mOnIes, wIth Interest. The Employer IS endeavounng to deal wIth ItS admInIstratIve dIfficultIes as qUIckly as possIble It was not appropnate, In my VIew to make a dIrectIOn whIch the Employer would not be able to comply wIth In the CIrcumstances Rather than gIve the requested dIrectIOn, I advIsed the partIes that one would expect the Employer to proceed as qUIckly as possible to ensure that It met ItS oblIgatIOns under the CollectIve Agreement. At one pOInt, the Employer advIsed that ItS admInIstratIve Issues would be resolved by June 2000 One can only expect that the Employer would be able to resolve the admInIstratIve problem by that tIme If the 4 Employer however IS unable to meet ItS CollectIve Agreement oblIgatIOns by June 2000 representatIves of the Employer are reqUIred to appear before the GSB on July 7 2000 to explam why the Employer was unable to met ItS oblIgatIOns by that tIme At that heanng, If It IS necessary the Umon wIll have the opportumty to make further submIssIOns on the Issue Dated at Toronto thIS 28th day ofPebruary 2000 .. Ken Petryshen - Vice- Chair