HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-1847.Carolli.00-10-05 Decision
o NTARW EMPU) YES DE LA COURONNE
CROW"! EMPLOYEES DE L '()NTARW
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# 1847/99
OPSED#00E010
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Druon
(CarollI)
GIievor
- and -
The Crown III RIght of Ontano
(Mirustn of Health and Long Term Care)
Employer
BEFORE Bam Fisher Vice ChaIr
FOR THE Kathleen Lawrence
GRIEVOR Gnevance Officer
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Druon
FOR THE Janet Myers
EMPLOYER Employee Relanons Consultant
Mimsm of Health and Long-Term Care
HEARING September 12, 2000
2
AWARD
ThIS gnevance mvolves a claim under ArtIcle 7 1 2 of the CollectIve
Agreement regardmg Pay AdmmIstratIOn.
ThIS case was heard as part of the med/arb process
The Gnevor settled a prevIOUS gnevance on April 21, 1999 at WhICh
tIme It was agreed that the Gnevor was to be permanently assIgned to the
posItIOn of a Hardware Network TechnICian, WhICh held the classIficatIOn of
a Systems Officer 2 Unfortunately for the Gnevor, there was no dIscussIOn
at the tIme of settlement as to where the Gnevor would be placed on the
appropnate pay gnd. It should be noted that the Gnevor sIgned the
settlement agamst the advIce of hIS Local OPSEU PresIdent. In fact the
gnevor obtamed legal advIce from hIS own lawyer on whether or not he
should accept the settlement. The gnevor dId not raise the Issue of the
placement on the pay gnd wIth hIS lawyer, nor IS It even clear that hIS lawyer
had a copy of the CollectIve Agreement.
The gnevor assumed that as he had m effect been performmg the
dutIes of a Hardware Network TechnICian for seven years before he was
confirmed mto the posItIOn, that he should have been put at the top of the
Hardware Network TechnICian pay gnd.
However that assumptIOn by the gnevor was mcorrect. ArtIcle 7 1 2
of the CollectIve Agreement makes It clear that, subject to a mmImum 3%
pay mcrease, where an employee receIves a promotIOn, the employee's new
pay IS at the lowest level m the new pay gnd. ThIS IS what the employer dId
m thIS case
I therefore find that the Gnevor was properly placed on the salary gnd
followmg the settlement of hIS prevIOus gnevance
The gnevance IS therefore dIsmIssed.
3
Dated at Toronto tills 5th day of October, 2000
Barry B FIsher, VIce Chair