HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-4000.Edwards.05-09-20 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# 2004-4000 2005-0251
UNION# 2005-0302-0003 2005-0302-0002
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Edwards) Union
- and -
The Crown In RIght of Ontano
(Mimstry of Health and Long-Term Care) Employer
BEFORE RandI H. Abramsky Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION DavId Wnght
Ryder Wnght Blair & Holmes LLP
Barnsters and SOlICItorS
FOR THE EMPLOYER Fateh SalIm
Counsel
Management Board Secretanat
HEARING September 19 2005
2
DeCISIon
At the outset of the heanng, a prelImInary Issue arose regardIng the order of proceedIng.
The Umon asserts that the Employer must go first SInce thIS case Involves a dIscIplInary matter
The Employer asserts that It IS the Umon whIch must go first, SInce no dIscIplIne IS Involved.
Instead, It asserts that the gnevor has faIled to comply wIth an earlIer decIsIOn of the Gnevance
Settlement Board, whIch determIned that a conflIct of Interest eXIsts In ItS submISSIOn, the
Umon must proceed first to establIsh why that earlIer Award IS no longer bIndIng.
I conclude that the Employer must proceed first.
ThIS case may be charactenzed eIther as a dIscIplInary matter or as an alleged breach by
the gnevor of the earlIer GSB decIsIOn. Under eIther charactenzatIOn, the onus rests wIth the
Employer and the Employer must proceed first.
In so rulIng, I note that Vice-Chair FInley In her earlIer Award - OPSEU (Ecbtards) and
MinistlY of Health GSB No 2216/94 (January 9 1996) at p 24 - determIned that the Issue of
the gnevor's transfer as a result of a conflIct of Interest determInatIOn by the Deputy Mimster
was "dIscIplInary" In the sense that the Issue was one of '''InsubordInatIOn' should the Gnevor
fall to comply wIth the order of the Deputy Mimster set out In her letter of November 18 1994"
As the Board held "It IS not the applIcatIOn of the conflIct-of-Interest regulatIOns and procedures
whIch IS dIscIplInary In thIS case It IS the InsubordInatIOn whIch may ensue from the faIlure to
notIfy the Deputy Mimster or to follow the orders set out by the Deputy Mimster whIch may
attract dIscIplIne" The same sItuatIOn applIes here
3
I further note that the "ConflIct of Interest and Post-ServIce DIrectIves" state that where
there IS a faIlure to comply wIth the conflIct of Interest standards, the employee wIll be
"dIscIplIned as appropnate "
AlternatIvely thIS case may be vIewed as an alleged breach by the gnevor of the earlIer
GSB decIsIOn. The January 4 2005 letter to the gnevor states that "In lIght of thIS breach, the
Mimstry has no optIOn but to enforce the decIsIOn of the Deputy Mimster and the Gnevance
Settlement Board that you must remove yourself from the conflIct of Interest sItuatIOn." Clearly
It IS the party allegIng the breach whIch bears the onus on that Issue and must proceed first.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the Employer must proceed first In thIS
matter
Issued at Toronto thIS 20th day of September 2005
RandI H. Abramsky
Vice-Chair