Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-0965.Walters et al.04-04-28 Decision Crown Employees Commission de ~~ Grievance Settlement reglement des griefs Board des employes de la Couronne ~-,... Suite 600 Bureau 600 Ontario 180 Dundas Sl. West 180 rue Dundas Ouest Toronto Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Telec. (416) 326-1396 GSB# 2000-0965 2001-0735 2002-1019 UNION# 00D372, 2001-0602-0001 [0IB250] 2001-0506-0015 [02A739] IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (Walters et al ) Grievor - and - The Crown In RIght of Ontano (Mimstry of TransportatIOn) Employer BEFORE Bram HerlIch Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION Ed Holmes Ryder Wnght, Blair & Doyle BarrIsters and SOlICItorS FOR THE EMPLOYER F enna MurJ 1 Counsel Management Board Secretanat HEARING Apnl 20 2004 2 DeCISIon By deCISIOn dated March 25 2003 I Issued an award (Crawford et. al 2000-0965 et al) whIch dealt wIth some 85 outstandIng gnevances These gnevances related, broadly speakIng, to the employer's use of underfill desIgnatIOns In the TransportatIOn Enforcement Officer ("TEO") classIficatIOn senes In the context of those proceedIngs, the partIes had agreed to a protocol to govern the use of the underfill desIgnatIOn wIth respect to the TE02 posItIOn on a "goIng-forward" basIs DespIte that agreement, however they were unable to agree on the questIOn of what compensatIOn, If any ought to be paid to the IndIVIdual gnevors They consequently referred that questIOn to me under the medIatIOn/arbItratIOn procedures set out In ArtIcle 22 16 of the collectIve agreement. I determIned and dIrected that the employer pay to each gnevor the sum of $1 00000 (less statutory deductIOns) The three gnevors whose gnevances are now agaIn before me were each part of the group of gnevors whose gnevances were dIsposed of by my award. However my award also contaIned the folloWIng (at page 3) Any gnevor lIsted In the attached Schedule "A" who takes the posItIOn that hIs/her gnevance raises Issues dIfferent than those resolved by thIS order and who wIshes to pursue those Issues IS hereby dIrected to so advIse the umon wIthIn 30 days of the date of thIS order and to Waive any entItlement to a payment under the terms of thIS Order pendIng a heanng Into the ments of theIr gnevance WithIn 15 days of beIng notIfied of any such claim, the umon wIll, In turn, notIfy the employer It shall be open to eIther party at a heanng Into any such claim to argue that the gnevance raises the same Issue as that resolved by thIS Order and If that IS found to be the case the gnevor shall be entItled to the benefits of thIS Order In the event It IS found that the gnevances raise other Issues, the gnevor shall not be entItled to the benefits of thIS Order 3 The umon asserts that each of the gnevances of the three gnevors currently before me raises an Issue(s) dIfferent from those resolved by my prevIOUS order The employer dIsputes that contentIOn and, as a prelImInary matter asks that I declare that the 3 Instant gnevors are bound by my pnor award, are thereby entItled to claim the $1000 00 payment from the employer but nothIng more Very bnefly the umon descnbed the "novel" aspects of these gnevors' claims as follows Pnor to workIng as a TEO Mr Malloy was a CorrectIOnal Officer From that posItIOn he was a successful applIcant In a postIng for a TEO posItIOn. The latter posItIOn IS In a hIgher rated classIficatIOn than the former and thus, asserts the umon, Mr Malloy ought to have benefited from the Pay AdmInIstratIOn provIsIOns of the collectIve agreement and, In partIcular ArtIcle 7 1.2 thereof Although the umon does not dIspute that Mr Malloy was by no means umque In thIS regard (as compared wIth the other gnevors covered by the Crawford decIsIOn for whom the TEO posItIOn also represented a promotIOn from theIr prevIOus posItIOns), It asserts that the Issue IS dIfferent from those dealt wIth by that decIsIOn. A sImIlar entItlement IS asserted on behalf of the gnevor RevIlle In her case, however the umon also relIes on the fact that the postIng made no mentIOn of any underfill assIgnment and asserts that the gnevor had sufficIent reqUIsIte current qualIficatIOns to have been Immediately assIgned to the TE02 posItIOn and to have been paid at that rate FInally In the case of the gnevor Walters the umon pOInts to uneven regIOnal practIces WIth respect to the rates of pay for recently hIred TEOs and to the deletenous Impact thIS wIll have on hIS ultImate penSIOn entItlement. I have revIewed a vanety of matenals In comIng to my determInatIOn In thIS matter the submIssIOns of the partIes - both at the recent heanng and also (as I IndIcated to counsel I would do) In theIr submIssIOns In full seSSIOn dunng the course of the Crawford case the terms of the partIes' "goIng-forward" protocol the wntten outlIne of the posItIOns Intended to be advanced by the umon In the Crawford case the partIculars provIded In respect of the three gnevors and, of course my prevIOUS order In Crawford. 4 HavIng revIewed and consIdered those matenals, I am satIsfied that there IS nothIng so umque or novel about the CIrcumstances of any of the three gnevors at hand to warrant the conclusIOn that any of theIr gnevances raise Issues that are dIfferent from any of the Issues resolved by the Crawford Order It IS abundantly clear that InCOnsIstent regIOnal practIces were a central Issue In the Crawford lItIgatIOn. SImIlarly the Impact of the employer's alleged faIlure to eIther Include the underfill desIgnatIOn on partIcular Job postIngs or to fully consIder IndIVIdual qualIficatIOns rather than sImply apply a blanket polIcy were Issues clearly raised by the umon In the Crawford case And, finally whIle the argument (rooted In ArtIcle 7 1.2 of the collectIve agreement) advanced on behalf of the gnevors Malloy and RevIlle does not appear to have been prevIOusly artIculated wIth the same specIficIty and preCISIOn, there IS no questIOn that the umon relIed on the Pay AdmInIstratIOn provIsIOns of the collectIve agreement In the earlIer lItIgatIOn. Further and as already IndIcated, neIther are these two gnevors umque In theIr cIrcumstances (i e employees for whom the move to TE02 represented a promotIOn) - thIS descnptIOn applIes to a number of the full slate of gnevors lIsted In the Crawford decIsIOn. I am satIsfied that thIS, too was an Issue resolved by the prevIOUS Order In the cIrcumstances, the employer's motIOn IS granted. The gnevors are entItled to the same remedy as that set out In the Crawford Order 1 e a payment of $1000 00 (less statutory deductIOns) no more no less And they are not entItled to lItIgate theIr gnevances any further as those gnevances have already been determIned under the terms of the Crawford Order Dated at Toronto thIS 28th day of Apnl2004 ~. \").L~~~~l: il -. " 1 .. .:: . [(1m er ich, ice-Chairper'son