HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-1639.Trotman et al.01-11-30 Decision
~M~ om~o EA1PLOYES DE LA COURONNE
_QJ_L i~~i~~~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#1639/99
UNION# 990285
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Trotman et al)
Grievor
-and-
The Crown In Right of Ontario
(Ontario Realty Corporation)
Employer
BEFORE Loretta Mikus Vice-Chairperson
FOR THE GRIEVOR Don Martin
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER Robert Gordlca
Counsel, Legal Services Branch
Management Board Secretariat
HEARING November 22, 2001
DECISION
On October 9, 1998 and April 9, 1999, the Employer and the Union entered Into
Minutes of Settlement In respect of a grievance arising from the Employer's decIsion to
divest Itself of the services provided by the Ontario Realty Corporation Those Minutes of
Settlement were a final and binding resolution of all outstanding matters flowing from that
outsourcing of services and was, specifically, a resolution of all matters related to GSB
grievance # 0920/98
In September of 1999 a group of employees, namely Dorotea Benedlcto, Isabela
Zochowskl, Antonio Ballesteros, Ben Ebrahlml, Leslie Laserna, Pawan Mechdlratta, Sandra
Glrdher, Larry Moore and Derek BalJnauth, filed a grievance alleging that management had
violated the collective agreement, specifically Article 2 2 1 That breach, It was stated,
constituted an unfair labour practice and was contrary to the Human Rights Code By way
of remedy the grlevors were seeking reinstatement to their former positions with full
compensation for lost wages, benefits and seniority In the alternative, If reinstatement was
not feasible, they asked for a guarantee of continued employment at their current rate of
pay, Including benefits
The grievance contained what was described as a rationale for the allegations
which Included the following the grlevors were Intimidated and thereby forced to sign an
agreement to take a new Job with the new employer; they were not told the full details of the
divestment and Important Information was unreasonably withheld by the Employer; they
were effectively denied the right to review the full content of the RFP and were coerced Into
making a blind decIsion as a result, the divestment should not have Included the Design
Services Branch and, Indeed ItS Inclusion was a deliberate attempt to Include this group of
employees In the outsourcing of services which could have been retained within the ORC
without undue hardship to the Employer Other grounds for the grievance Included the
2
assertion that their new positions have created health and safety hazards, Insecure Jobs,
stress and physical and mental pain and suffenng
The Union took the position that the Minutes of Settlement confirmed ItS agreement
that the Employer had met ItS responsibilities under the reasonable efforts provIsion of the
Collective Agreement.
The gnevors submitted their position personally to the Board and, after due
consideration of those submissions, I find that the gnevance must be dismissed The
Issue of the Employer's responsibility dunng the divestment of services was properly
resolved by the Employer and the Union at the time of the outsourcing Once the Union
was satisfied that the Employer had fulfilled ItS obligations to ItS employees by making
reasonable efforts to ensure that the employees were guaranteed a certain level of salary,
benefits and senlonty, the Employer was free to proceed with ItS divestment. The Minutes
of Settlement applied to the employees Involved and the decIsion to accept the new
position or to be surplused was left to each Individual based on their own personal situation
Those Minutes of Settlement resolved all Issues for the employees of the ORC concerning
the RFP and are binding on the Employer, the Union and the employees Involved
For the reasons stated above, the gnevance IS dismissed
Dated at Toronto, this 30th day of November, 2001
~
. . .
.. . ..
. .. ..
:" to .
Loretta Mikus, Vice-Chairperson
3