HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-1026.Green et al.01-05-24 Decision
~M~ om~o EA1PLOYES DE LA COURONNE
_Wi iii~~~i~T DE L 'ONTARIO
COMMISSION DE
REGLEMENT
"IIIl__1I'" BOARD DES GRIEFS
Ontario
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 600 TORONTO ON M5G 128 TELEPHONElTELEPHONE. (416) 326-1388
180 RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 600 TORONTO (ON) M5G 128 FACSIMILE/TELECOPIE. (416) 326-1396
GSB#1026/98
UNION# 98B484
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Green et al)
Grievor
-and-
The Crown In Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Finance)
Employer
BEFORE Felicity Briggs Vice-Chair
FOR THE GRIEVOR Don Martin
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER Leonard Marvy
Senior Counsel
Management Board Secretariat
HEARING Written submissions
DECISION
The partIes agreed to forego a heanng m tlus matter and to argue by way of
wntten submIssIOns ThIS dIspute concerns the alleged failure to convert
certam employees The Employer set out a bnef descnptIOn of the facts as
follows
1 On August 25, 1998 Leah Casselman, OPSEU PresIdent, filed a
umon (pohcy) gnevance whIch alleged that "the Mmlstry of Fmance
[was] faIhng to convert posItIOns and mdlvlduals m accordance wIth
ArtIcle 31 15 The desIred settlement was for the Mmlstry to
"nnmedmtely convert posItIOns and quahfied mdlvlduals m
accordance wIth the CollectIve Agreement"
2 On December 11, 1998 the Gnevance Settlement Board dIsmIssed the
umon's pohcy gnevance (GSB#1237/98) Vice Chair Bnggs
detennmed on page 11 that
[a ]fter consIderatIOn of all of the facts of tlus case, I must dIsmIss
the gnevance I cannot find, as a pohcy matter, the unclassIfied
employees (set out at Tab 20 of the document bnef) who have been
lured smce June 1996 should be converted. SImply put, there IS no
contmumg need for theIr work to be done on a full tnne basIs
3 SIX unclassIfied employees of the BarrIe RegIOnal Assessment office
of the fonner Property Assessment DIvIsIOn of the Mmlstry of
Fmance (now the Ontano Property Assessment CorporatIOn) are
gnevmg that the employer faIled to convert them mto the classIfied
servIce, contrary to the CollectIve Agreement ArtIcle 31 15 These
gnevors request that the employer recogmze theIr status and convert
them to the classIfied servIce nnmedmtely, WIth compensatIOn for
accrued benefits and semonty
4 Each of the SIX gnevors, Ehzabeth Walker, Gall Green, TaInmy
Campbell, Elame GIrard, Pamela McBnde, and Tnn Camlck, appeared
on the schedule (referred to as Tab 20 m excerpt quoted above at
paragraph 2) whIch hsted all Property Assessment DIvIsIOn
unclassIfied staff who would have been more than two years as of
2
December 31, 1998 ThIS schedule was appended to Vice Chair Bnggs'
December 11, 1998 decIsIOn and was compnsed of those mdIvIduals who
were to be affected by the gnevance arbItratIOn decIsIOn, GSB #1237/98
The UnIon dId not dIspute these facts The submIssIOns from the UnIon
consIsted entIrely of letters from the SIX gnevors explammg why, m theIr
VIew the GSB decIsIOn referred to above should not to apply
In ItS reply submIssIOns the Employer also stated that
The Employer further submIts that the assertIOn that the gnevors
(partIcularly Ms Tammy Campbell) are currently employed m the
same capacIty/posItIOn as they were at the tune of the mItIal decIsIOn
IS of no consequence, as they are not employed by the MmIstry of
Fmance The dIvestment of the Property Assessment DIvIsIOn of the
MmIstry of Fmance to the Ontano Property Assessment CorporatIOn
(OPAC) was completed on December 31,1998 As of January 1, 1998
the mUnIcIpahtIes assumed financIal responsIbIhty for the dehvery of
property assessment servIces Therefore, these mdIvIduals are not
employed by the MinIstry of Fmance and whether or not they
contmue to occupy the "same posItIOn" or engage m the same Job
dutIes or functIOns IS of no relevance to the Issues raised by theIr
gnevances
SImply put, It was the Employer's posItIOn that the group gnevance filed IS
marbItrable and should be dIsmIssed because the doctnne of res Judlcata
apphes That IS to say that the matter raised by the mstant gnevance IS the
IdentIcal Issue under the same prOVISIOn of the same collectIve agreement as
that consIdered by the December 11, 1998 Gnevance Settlement decIsIOn In
support of ItS posItIOn, the Employer rehed upon Re CUPE, Local 207 and
CIty of Sudbury (1965),15 L.A.C 403 (RevIlle), ReAlgoma Steel
3
CorporatIOn Ltd and UnIted Steelworkers, Local 2251 (1982), 6 L.A.C
(3) 346 (Brown), and Re The Crown III Right of Ontario (Ministry of
TransportatIOn) and OPSEU (Stegner) (September 8, 1995), unreported
(MIkus)
After readmg the Employer's submIssIOns and the comments of the gnevors
I am of the VIew that the doctnne of res Judlcata applIes and the gnevance
must fall The SIX gnevors were mcluded on the ongmal lIst of employees
affected by the polIcy gnevance that was decIded and Issued on December
11, 1998 It IS apparent that the mdIvIdual gnevors are askmg for a re-
consIderatIOn of theIr facts because they are of the VIew that the December
11, 1998 decIsIOn was wrong and/or ought not to apply m theIr
cIrcumstances WhIle I understand theIr frustratIOn, my decIsIOn of
December 11, 1998 was final and bmdmg on the partIes, mcludmg these
gnevors
Dated m Toronto, tlllS 24th day of May, 2001
FelIcIty D Bnggs, Vice-Chair
4