HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-2040.Mallard.05-08-30 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# 2002-2040
UNION# 2002-0234-0120
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Mallard) Union
- and -
The Crown In RIght of Ontano
(Mimstry of Commumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer
BEFORE Barry Stephens Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Stephen GIles
Gnevance Officer
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
FOR THE EMPLOYER Mike Bnscoe
Staff RelatIOns Officer
Mimstry of Commumty Safety and
CorrectIOnal ServIces
HEARING June 2, 200S
2
DeCISIon
The partIes agreed to an ExpedIted MedIatIOn-ArbItratIOn Protocol for the Maplehurst
CorrectIOnal Complex It IS not necessary to reproduce the entIre Protocol here Suffice It to say
that the partIes have agreed to an expedIted process whereIn each party provIdes the vIce-chair
wIth wntten submIssIOns, whIch Include the facts and authontIes the party Intends to rely upon,
one week pnor to the heanng. At the heanng, oral eVIdence IS not called, although the vIce-chair
IS permItted to request further InfOrmatIOn or documentatIOn. In addItIOn, If It becomes apparent
to eIther party or the vIce-chair that the Issues Involved In a partIcular case are of a complex or
sIgmficant nature, the case may be taken out of the expedIted process and processed through
"regular" arbItratIOn. Although IndIVIdual gnevors often wIsh to provIde oral eVIdence at
arbItratIOn, the process adopted by the partIes provIdes for a thorough canvaSSIng of the facts
pnor to the heanng, and leads to a fair and efficIent adJudIcatIOn process
The gnevor has worked at Maplehurst SInce January 1997 In the capacIty of Nurse 2 In late
2002, she became aware that the Mimstry had hIred new Nurse 2's at a rate of pay hIgher than
her then-current rate of pay The gnevor gneved, allegIng the payment practIces were unfair to
her assertIng that there were labour relatIOns reasons why her pay should be reassessed In
accordance wIth the Mimstry's new hmng polIcy The gnevor subsequently left the Mimstry
takIng a Job at a hospItal The employer responds that there IS no provIsIOn In the collectIve
agreement that governs or restncts the employer's nght to gIve credIt for past expenence to new
employees at the pOInt of hmng.
3
HavIng carefully revIewed the eVIdence presented and the submIssIOns of the partIes, It IS my
VIew that there IS no eVIdence of a breach of the collectIve agreement. As a result, the gnevance
IS dIsmIssed.
Dated at Toronto thIS 30th day of August, 200S