HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-1593.Vairo.01-04-10 Decision
ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COL'RONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L 'ONTARIO
GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 600 TORONTO ON M5G 128 TELEPHONElTELEPHONE, (416) 326-1388
180 RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 600 TORONTO (ON) M5G 128 FACSIMILElTELECOPIE. (416) 326-1396
GSB# 1593/98
OPSED#99B070
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Dmon
(V aIro )
Gnevor
- and -
The Crown ill RIght of Ontano
(Ontano Real~ CorporatIon)
Employer
BEFORE Jamce D Johnston Vice-ChaIT
FOR THE Don MartIn
GRIEVOR Gnevance OfficIer
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Dmon
FOR THE Robert GordIca
EMPLOYER Labour RelatIOns Consultant
Human Resources ServIces Branch
Management Board Secretanat
HEARING March 29 2001
DECISION
In this case, the grievor, Mr Frank Vairo, was surplused At the end of the twenty-
four month period, he grieved that a particular vacancy had not been posted The position
in question was a temporary vacancy of less than six months duration The applicable
section of the collective agreement reads
86 1 Where an employee is assigned temporarily to a position, Article 6 (Posting
and Filling of Vacancies or New Positions) shall not apply except where
(i) the term of temporary assignment is greater than six (6) months
duration, and
(ii) the specific dates of term are established at least two (2) months
in advance of the commencement of the temporary assignment.
Therefore, the employer has no obligation under the collective agreement to post a
temporary vacancy of less than six months duration
The employer has made a motion to dismiss this case on the basis that there has
been no violation of the collective agreement.
The union does not dispute that there has been no violation of the collective
agreement.
According to Section 7(3) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act
R S 0 1993, c 38, there must be a difference between the parties for this Board to have
jurisdiction
2
For all of the reasons expressed in Re The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of
Government Services) and Ontario Public Services Employees Union (Stewart), June
22, 1995) unreported (Briggs), and Re The Crown in Right of Ontario (Toronto Area
Transit Operating Authority) and Amalgamated Transit Union (Blake) (May 3, 1988)
unreported (Shime), I have concluded that I do not have jurisdiction to hear and determine
these grievances
Accordingly, this grievance is dismissed
Dated at Toronto, this 10th day of April, 2001
Janice Johnston, Vice-Chair
3