HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-0933.Group Grievance Ainsbury et al.02-10-11 Decision
~~~ o@~o EA1PLOYES DE L4 COURONNE
_Wi iii~~~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# 0933/01
UNION# 01F530
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Group Gnevance, AInsbury et al )
Grievor
-and-
The Crown In RIght of Ontano
(Mimstry of TransportatIOn)
Employer
BEFORE Bram HerlIch Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION RobIn Gordon
Gnevance Officer
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
FOR THE EMPLOYER Corey Foster
Employee RelatIOns AdvIsor
Mimstry of TransportatIOn
SUBMISSIONS September 24 2002
2
AWARD
The partIes have put thIS case before me by way ofwntten submIssIOns Those
submIssIOns are as follows
In the mterest of resolvmg the above-noted dIspute m a tlmeh manner the partIes
agree to the followmg facts
1 The Mimstn of TransportatIOn and OPSEU entered mto mmutes of
settlement dated Ma, lith, 2001
2 One condItIOn of the mmutes of settlement was to appomt an employee
to the posItIOn of Semor Dnver Exammer at the Oshawa Dnver
EXaImnatIOn Office
3 On Ma, 23 2001 employees Mark Amsbun Gan Roffe, Frank
Jackson, Greg Keen, Tom DelplppO Wend, McCabe Patncla
Thompson-Jeffre, Gall Freemantle Lauree Hubbert, Cath, SIlva, and
Carol Kelh filed a group gnevance allegmg that the Mimstn had
vIOlated artIcle 6 of the CollectIve Agreement b, not posltmg [SIC] the
posItIOn of Semor Dnver EXaImner at the Oshawa Dnver EXaIllmatIOn
Office
SubmIssIOns of the partIes
OPSEU
The gnevors m thIS matter allege that the employer has vIOlated artIcle 6 of the
CollectIve Agreement b, faIlmg to post the posItIOn of Semor Dnver EXaIllmer at
the Oshawa Dnver EXaIllmatIOn Office
The Umon concurs that the Mimstn was reqUIred to fill the vacanc, m
accordance wIth the mmutes of settlement dated Ma, 11 2001 The Umon
3
therefore does not allege an, vIOlatIOn of the CollectIve Agreement agamst the
Employer m thIS matter and takes the posItIOn that there IS legalh no dIspute
wIth respect to the Mimstry's actIOns m thIS matter
NotwIthstandmg the above the Umon notes that the gnevors m thIS matter
remam frustrated that the, were not provIded wIth a satIsfacton explanatIOn as to
the sItuatIOn m a tImeh manner
Employer
Whereas there IS no dIspute between the bargammg agent and the employer m
thIS matter the Employer submIts that the Board lacks JunsdIctIOn to reVIew and
decIde thIS matter
In accordance wIth the decIsIOn m ATU (Blake) & Toronto Area Transit
Authoritv GSB File No 1276/87 (ShIme) dated Ma, 3 1988 the Board IS
compelled to follow other awards of the Board. The Board has had opportumn
to reVIew a number of cases pnor to thIS case where there IS no dIspute between
the bargammg agent and the employer In all of these cases the board has
concluded that It dId not have JunsdIctIOn and dIsmIssed the gnevance Cases m
pomt are OPSEU (group grievance Cook et al.) vs The Crown in Right of
Ontario (The Ministrv of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services)
GSB#1401/99 and OPSEU (Pearson and Azevedo) vs The Cro>tn in Right of
Ontario (Ontario Clean Water Agencv) GSB# 1911/96
The Mimstn requests that the gnevance be dIsmIssed
Dated thIS 24th da, of September 2002
<signed Robm Gordon>
For OPSEU
<signed Core, Foster>
For the Mimstn
4
HavIng regard to the posItIOns of the partIes and the fact that there IS no legal
dIspute between them, the gnevance IS hereby dIsmIssed.
Dated at Toronto thIS 11th day of October 2002
~ ~).L~~~~l: _.
, ... .. r~
. :.. I .. :"
Bram HerlIch, Vice-Chair