HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-3434.Smith.05-08-15 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# 2004-3434
UNION# 2005-0247-0001
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(SmIth) Union
- and -
The Crown In RIght of Ontano
(Mimstry of Commumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer
BEFORE Nimal V DIssanayake Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION GavIn Leeb
Barnster and SOlICItor
FOR THE EMPLOYER Andrew Baker
Counsel
Management Board Secretanat
HEARING August 8 2005
CONFERENCE CALL August 11 2005
2
DeCISIon
This decision pertains to a discharge grievance dated
January 6, 2005 filed by Ms Kellie Smith, a casual correctional
officer The employer moved that the Board lacked jurisdiction
to deal with the grievance because a prior grievance dated
December 10, 2004 filed by the grievor with respect to the same
discharge had been settled by minutes dated December 13, 2004
signed by the employer, the union and the grlevor
The union's position was two-fold It was submitted that
the December 13, 2004 document titled "Memorandum of Agreement"
was not on its face a typical settlement of grievance, and ought
not be treated as such Alternatively, the union submitted that
in any event such settlement ought not bar the grievor's right
to grieve her discharge because at the time she signed it she
was under such stress due to her personal circumstances, that
she signed it under "duress" The union urged me to hear the
evidence with regard to "duress" and determine, whether in the
circumstances, the settlement is binding on the grlevor The
employer opposed any inquiry into the issue of duress, and urged
the Board to uphold the settlement document as a complete bar to
any further grievance
3
The parties requested that I lssue a "bottom-line" decision
with reasons to follow
Having carefully considered the parties' submissions and
authorities cited, I find that the December 13, 2004 document lS
a valid and binding settlement of a prior grievance with respect
to the grievor's discharge It bars a further grievance
Therefore, the Board is without jurisdiction to deal with the
instant grlevance
In the result, the employer's motion is upheld and the
grlevance lS dismissed
Dated this 15th day of August, 2005 at Toronto, Ontario
~~
. . ,.... ,
.. .. ...... .
. . , ~ . .
. -, ~
.. ~~~~.~ Va. ..~ e~s~n:':::-.- ... .<:~~.