HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-2013UNION98_04_14
~
ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO
1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
,
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUlTE600, TORONTO ON M5G 1Z8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE (416) 326-1388
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 600, TORONTO (ON) M5G 1Z8 FACSIMILEfTELECOPIE (416) 326-1396
GSB # 2013/97
OPSEU # 98U004
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Uruon GrIevance)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown In Right ofOntano
(Management Board SecretarIat)
Employer
BEFORE S L Stewart Vice-Chair
FOR THE G Leeb
UNION Gnevance Officer
Ontano Public ServIce Employees Umon
FOR THE C NikolIch
EMPLOYER Counsel
Legal ServIces Branch
Management Board Secretanat
HEARING Apnl 3, 1998
.
~
DECISION
The grievance before me is a Union policy grievance, dated
January 12, 1998, in which the Union claims that the Employer has
improperly determined the amount of the financial incentive to be
employed in connection with its reasonable efforts relating to
negotiated transfers
The grievance has its origin in a June 2 , 1997 decision of
Vice-chair W Kaplan wherein reference is made to "avoided costs"
being employed as an incentive in negotiations At pp 20-21,
the decision states as follows
The structure of Appendix 9 indicates, and this purpose
does not appear to be fundamentally in dispute between
the parties, that it was developed to create a financial
incentive to the employer to place public servants in jobs
that met certain terms with avoidance of enhanced severance
costs, and possibly more, the benefit to the particular
ministries At a minimum - and, obviously each case will
differ - amounts up to avoided costs should be used as
an incentive to secure jobs for public servants, many
of whom, Appendix 9 begins, "served for a lengthy period"
It is quite conceivable that financial incentives could
have been used to overcome some of the difficulties
identified in this case that were said to make it
difficult to directly place PER employees The fact that
the Ministry has not previously had to enter into
negotiations with a BPS transfer payment agency, and
possibly its union, to give just one example of how
it might give effect to this provision and its reasonable
efforts obligation, does not mean that it should not do
so if its efforts in doing so would, in all the
circumstances, be reasonable
The basis for this policy grievance is the Union's
understanding that the Employer has limited the amount available
in negotiated tramsfers to the amount of the enhanced severance
.
.
.
2
that would be payable It is the Union's position that the
"avoided costs" contemplated by Mr Kaplan's decision should
include, but not be limited to, amounts equivalent to six months
pay in lieu of notice, the separation allowance contemplated by
Article 34 3 of the Collective Agreement, including the allowance
for tuition fees, as well as saved pension costs
Ms Nikolich advised the Board that the Employer has not in
fact determined that an amount equivalent to the enhanced
severance costs is the ceiling for a financial incentive that may
be offered in connection with negotiated transfers Indeed, she
advised, no specific ceiling has been established, on the basis
that the Employer wishes to maintain flexibility and not fetter
its discretion in connection with negotiated transfers
Whatever the reasonableness of the Union's understanding
that such a policy exists, the Employer, through its counsel, has
specifically and clearly advised that enhanced severance is not,
as a matter of policy, the ceiling for negotiated transfers
Given this position, it is my conclusion that the grievance must
be dismissed While there is some force to Mr Leeb's argument
that detailed directions to the Employer at the outset as to what
will constitute reasonable efforts will avoid the potential of
having to attempt to "undo" what has been done in negotiations, I
did not find it to be persuasive in the circumstances before me
The Union is, of course, free to challenge the Employer in
~
,
3
connection with any matter that may arise in connection with any
particular set of negotiations or if a policy is established in
the future
Given the foregoing conclusion it is unnecessary to deal
with the other submissions of Ms Nikolich and Mr Leeb For the
foregoing reasons, the grievance is dismissed
Dated at Toronto this 14th .
day of Aprll, 1998
~
S L stewart - Vice-Chair