HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-1636.Amaral et al.00-03-22 Decision
o NTARW EMPU) YES DE LA COURONNE
CROW"! EMPLOYEES DE L 'ONTARW
1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 600 TORONTO ON M5G 128 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE, (416) 326-1388
180 RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 600 TORONTO (ON) M5G 128 FACSIMILE/TELECOPIE. (416) 326-1396
GSB # 1636/98
OPSEU # 99B083
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Amaral et aD
Grievor
- and -
The Crown m RIght of Ontano
(Miillstn of Finance)
Employer
BEFORE Joseph D CarTIer V Ice ChaIr
FOR THE ETIC O'BTIen
GRIEVOR Counsel
ElIot, SmIth
Bamsters & SolIcItors
FOR THE Fateh SalIm
EMPLOYER Counsel
Legal ServIces Branch
Management Board SecretarIat
HEARING FebruaI) 29 2000
AWARD
ThIS gnevance, G S.B #1636-98 reflects a group of GTIevances filed In or about December
1998 by several IndivIduals Including, for Ident1flcanon purposes, Sharon Amaral. Those
GTIevors had been employed by the MiillStry of Finance and worked out of the RegIOnal
Assessment Office In Kingston, OntaTIo
The Kingston Assessment Office was divested by the MiillStry m or about December 1998 at
wmch tIme the relevant operanons were transferred to the Ontano Property Assessment
CorporatIOn.
The GTIevors were all offered, and, wIth the excepnon of Robert Bresee who retIred, accepted
jobs WIth the Successor Employer
The gnevances allege that the MiillStry had vIolated ArtIcle 19 1 of the CollectIve Agreement by
failmg to provIde "proper nonce of termmanon" Further each GTIevor requested "pay m lIeu"
referrable to hIS or her semoTIty Addinonally dUTIng the course of the gnevance procedure, an
alternanve claIm was raIsed for Nonce of Termmanon pursuant to the Employment Standards
Act.
2
By way of prehmmary mOTIon, Employer Counsel challenged the vahdity of the gnevances
smce, In ms submIssIon there was no dIfference between the partIes wmch could be the subject
of arbItraTIOn.
Indeed, the Umon dId not dispute that the gnevances properly fell Wltmn the ambIt of Appendix
9 rather than ArtIcle 19 1 of the CollectIve Agreement. There was no challenge to the
Employer's pOSITIOn that the GTIevors, havmg receIved Job offers from the new Employer had
not been laId-off or surplus sed pursuant to ArtIcle 191 Accordingly any Issue concemmg theIr
entItlement would have properly been referrable to AppendIx 9
However It was common ground between the PartIes that all oblIgaTIons of the Crown pursuant
to Appendix 9 mcluding any to mdivIdual employees, had been resolved by an Agreement
entered Into between them In November 1999 That beIng the case, there eXIsted no dispute
between the PartIes wmch could be the subject of arbItraTIOn.
As to the Employment Standards Act, the Uillon did not dispute the Employer's pOSITIOn that It
had no apphcaTIon m VIew of the COnTInUIty of employment proVIded to the GTIevors by the
Successor Employer
In the CIrcumstances set out above, I conclude that there eXists no dIfference between the
PartIes to the ColleCTIve Agreement. That bemg so, I have no JUTIsdicTIon pursuant to the
Crown Employees CollectIve BargaInmg Act, and, the gnevances must be dismIssed.
3
ThIs deCISIOn IS consIstent With the folloWing earher awards referred to b,
Employer Counsel, Mr SalIm.
Re: The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Attorney
General) and Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Barter et al),
(July 9, 1999) unreported (Briggs),
Re: The Crown in right of Ontario (Toronto Area Transit Operating
Authority) and Amalgamated Transit Union (Blake) (May 3,1988),
unreported (Shime).
Accordmgh I conclude that there IS no dIfference and that I have no JUrIsdIctIOn.
The gTIevances are dIslllissed.
Dated at Toronto Ontano thIS 22nd da, of March, 2000
Joseph D Carner Vice-ChaIr
4