HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-3567.Beausoleil.06-05-23 Decision
Crown Employees Commission de Nj
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# 2005-3567
UNION# 2006-0517-0002
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(BeausoleIl ) Union
- and -
The Crown In RIght of Ontano
(Mimstry ofCommumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer
BEFORE Barry Stephens Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Scott Andrews
Gnevance Officer
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
FOR THE EMPLOYER Faith Crocker
Staff RelatIOns Officer
Mimstry of Commumty Safety and
CorrectIOnal ServIces
HEARING May 17 2006
2
DeCISIon
The partIes have agreed to an ExpedIted MedIatIOn-ArbItratIOn Protocol It IS not necessary to
reproduce the entIre Protocol here Suffice It to say that the partIes have agreed to an "True
MedIatIOn-ArbItratIOn" process, whereIn each provIdes the vIce-chair wIth submIssIOns, whIch
Include the facts and authontIes each relIes upon. The process adopted by the partIes provIdes
for a canvaSSIng of the facts dunng the medIatIOn phase, although the vIce-chair has the
dIscretIOn to request further InformatIOn or documentatIOn. ArbItratIOn decIsIOns are Issued In
accordance wIth artIcle 22 16 of the collectIve agreement, wIthout reasons, and are wIthout
preJudIce or precedent.
The gnevance In thIS case relates to Rosell BeausoleIl Ms BeausoleIl was a former employee of
the OPS workIng at the Barne JaIl from 1999 untIl It was decommIssIOned In 2001 When she
left the Barne JaIl, she had reached level 2 on the pay gnd. She then took a Job wIth at CNCC
whIch was at the tIme pnvately managed, and not part of the OPS In 2003 Ms BeausoleIl
applIed to MWDC and was offered a posItIOn, startIng a pay level 3 She gneves two aspects of
her re-hIre First, she states that other employees were hIred at MWDC from CNCC at the same
tIme as her and, although they had no pnor OPS expenence, they stated at level 3 Second, she
states that she was reqUIred to complete a medIcal eXamInatIOn and engage In an applIcatIOn
process, whIle others, even others from outsIde the OPS were "hIred over the phone" She seeks
a further two year Increase to her wages, to level 5
The employer responds that Ms BeausoleIl was rehIred accordIng to ItS polIcy whIch may
reqUIre a new medIcal for returmng employees, dependIng on the length of tIme they have been
outsIde the OPS It provIded documentatIOn for all employees hIred by the mImstry dunng the
3
penod In questIOn, whIch IndIcated that all employees were reqUIred to provIde an recent
medIcal The employer also states that, as Ms BeausoleIl had severed her employment In 2001
It was under no oblIgatIOn to offer her any advanced standIng on the wage scale
After reVIeWIng the submIssIOns of the partIes and the collectIve agreement, It IS my conclusIOn
that the gnevance should be dIsmIssed.
Dated at Toronto thIS 23rd day of May 2006
<