HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-1196UNION98_06_18
ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
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 (416) 326-139(5
GSB # 1196/97
OPSEU #97U123, 97U124
IN THE MA TIER OF AN ARBITRA nON
Under -
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Uruon Gnevance)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown m RIght of Ontano
(Management Board Secretanat)
Employer
BEFORE K.M. Petryshen Vice-Charr
FOR THE D Wnght & M. Froh
UNION Counsels
Ryder Wnght Blarr & Doyle
Bamsters & SoliCItors
~
FOR THE M.Wilson
EMPLOYER Counsel, Legal ServIces Branch
Management Board Secretanat
HEARING June 1, 1998
DECISION
In a grievance dated september 29, 1998, the Union
claims that the Employer contravened paragraph 5 of Appendix 9 of
the collective agreement, the employee bidding provision That
provision reads as follows
5 Where an operation or part thereof is being disposed
of, and the Employer has determined that an
opportunity for tendering or bidding is warranted,
employees shall be given the opportunity to submit a
tender or bid on the same basis as others
The Employer has decided to outsource the work performed
by bargaining unit employees at the Central Collection Services
Branch of the Management Board Secretariat ("ccS") To this end
it issued a request for proposals ("RFpll) which it subsequently
amended after the Union succeded in obtaining interim relief
The amended RFP has not yet been issued In addition to the
dispute on employee bidding, the parties have yet to resolve a
reasonable efforts issue
Among other defences, the Employer takes the position
that the Union should be estopped from advancing its
interpretation of the employee bidding provision because of a
representation the Union made during negotiations As reflected
in a decision dated June 1, 1998, I ruled at a hearing on May 27,
1998, that the Employer could call its evidence of negotiating
history A hearing was held on June 1, 1998 to entertain the
I
.
2
evidence and the representations of the parties with respect to
the estoppel issue I advised the parties at the hearing that I
would attempt to provide them with a "bottom line" decision prior
to the hearing on the merits
After considering the evidence and the submissions of
the parties, I find that the representation made by Mr Todd on
behalf of the Union during bargaining on March 20, 1996, does not
support the estoppel position advanced by the Employer At this
point, I note simply that I found both Mr Wilson, the Employer's
witness, and Mr Todd to be credible witnesses The hearing in
this matter will continue on the dates previously scheduled
Dated at Toronto, this 18th day of June, 1998
/~ -o~
{~{~ 'L~
K M Petryshen - Vice-Chair