HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-1196UNION98_07_20
.
ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO
1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 800, TORONTO ON M5G 1Z8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE (416) 326-1388
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 800, TORONTO (ON) M5G 1Z8 FACS/MILE/TELECOPIE (416) 326-139(5
GSB #1196/97
OPSEU #97U123, 97U124
IN THE lVlATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINl1~G ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEM ENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Umon GrIevance)
Gnevor
- and -
The Crown In RIght of OntarIo
(Management Board SecretarIat)
Emplover
BEFORE K. M. Petryshen Vice-Chair
FOR THE D WrIght & M. Froh
UNION Counsels
Ryder Wnght Blair & Doyle
Barnsters & SolrcItors
FOR THE M, Wilson
EMPLOYER Counsel, Legal Services Branch
Management Board SecretarIat
REA RING July 13, 1998
I
DECISION
In a grievance dated September 29, 1997, the Union
claims that the Employer contravened the employee bidding
provision contained in Appendix 9 of the Collective Agreement
The 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 ( II CCS" ) It issued a
request for proposals ("RFP" ) which it subsequently amended after
the Union obtained interim relief The amended RFP has not yet
been issued In addition to the employee bidding dispute, the
parties have yet to resolve a reasonable efforts issue
The Employer took 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 bargaining At a hearing on June 1, 1998, I heard the
evidence and representations of the parties with respect to the
estoppel issue In a decision dated June 18, 1998, I found that
the representation made by Mr Todd during bargaining on March
20, 1996, did not support the estoppel position advanced by the
Employer
2
On July 13, 1998, I heard the representations of the
parties with respect to the interpretation of paragraph 5 of
Appendix 9 The Union argued that the language of paragraph 5,
particularly the words "on the same basis as others", gave
employees an effective opportunity to bid The Union submitted
that an effective opportunity meant the absence of false barriers
that would prevent an employee from bidding as well as the
provision of positive measures in certain circumstances, such as
giving employees time off with pay to prepare a bid In support
of its position, the Union relied on the language of paragraph 5,
the rights contained in Appendix 9 and Article 3, the no
discrimination provision The Employer argued that paragraph 5
of Appendix 9 simply gives an employee an opportunity to bid and
does not address the capacity of an employee to bid
I advised the parties at the hearing that I would
attempt to provide them with a "bottom line" decision prior to
July 21, 1998, the date when the hearing in this matter is
scheduled to continue After considering the submissions of the
parties, it is my conclusion that the interpretation of paragraph
5 advanced by the Employer is consistent with the language used
by the parties in that provision I agree with counsel for the
Employer's submission that if the parties had intended the
Union's intrepretation, the language of paragraph 5 would have
been quite different from the words agreed upon Accordingly,
the Union grievance dated September 29, 1997, which alleges a
3
contravention of paragraph 5 of Appendix 9, is dismissed
Dated at Toronto, this 20th day of July, 1998
I~ 2: ;!
It{uyJl~
K M Petryshen - vice-Chair
i
l
[-
i