Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-1196UNION98_06_01 , ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE J CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO 1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 600, TORONTO ON M5G 1Z8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE (416) 326-1388 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 600, TORONTO (ON) M5G 1Z8 FACS/MILE/TELECOPIE (41(J) 326-139(5 GSB # 1196/97 OPSEU #97U123, 97U124 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (UnIon GrIevance) Grievor - and - The Crown In RIght of OntarIO (Management Board SecretarIat) Employer BEFORE K.M Petryshen Vice-ChaIr FOR THE D WrIght & M Froh UNION Counsels Ryder WrIght BlaIr & Doyle Barnsters & SolICItors FOR THE M Wilson EMPLOYER Counsel, Legal ServIces Branch Management Board SecretarIat HEARING May 27, 1998 \. . DECISION The Employer wants to outsource the work performed by bargaining unit employees at the Central Collection Services Branch of the Management Board Secretariat ("ccS") The Employer issued a Request For Proposals ("RFp") in September, 1997, and the Union greeted this development with two Union grievances dated September 29, 1997 One grievance alleges that the Employer failed to comply with its reasonable efforts obligation The other grievance alleges that the Employer contravened paragraph 5 of Appendix 9, the employee bidding provision The parties agreed to hear the two grievances separately Mr G Leeb represents the Union on the reasonable efforts issue and Mr D Wright is counsel for the Union on the employee bidding issue The reasonable efforts issue was heard first and I issued a brief decision dated May 19, 1998, in which I found that the amended RFP did not satisfy the Employer's obligation to make reasonable efforts The hearing on the employee bidding grievance was scheduled to commence on May 20, 1998, and to continue on May 27, June 1 and 2, 1998 The parties adjourned the May 20, 1998 hearing Further to the May 19, 1998 decision, the Employer again amended the RFP and, at a hearing on May 27, 1998, it requested that the merits of the RFP be addressed Mr Wright, who was present to deal with the employee bidding issue, objected to the " Employer's request After entertaining the represent ions of the 2 parties, I ruled at the hearing that it would be inappropriate to address the merits of the amended RFP at the hearing on May 27, 1998 Mr Leeb had only returned from vacation the previous evening and it would have been unfair to expect that he and the Union would have been in a position to deal with the merits of the amended RFP on such short notice The parties agreed to deal with the amended RFP on June 2, 1998 At the hearing on May 27, 1998, the parties raised a few issues relating to the employee bidding grievance One of those issues concerned whether the Employer could call evidence of negotiating history in support of an estopple argument it intended to advance in the alternative The Union objected to my hearing this evidence After hearing the represent ions of the parties, I ruled at the hearing that the Employer could call its estopple evidence Given the circumstances, I was satisfied that it was appropriate to hear the evidence before determining ~. whether it could support an estopple The parties agreed to hear r the estopple evidence on June 1, 1998 The other dates for the employee bidding issue are July 13, 15, 16, 17 and 21, 1998 Dated at Toronto thIS 1 st day ofJune, 1998 I} I~ I / tt^l/;vL t K M Petryshen - Vice-Chair "