HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 04-05-17
rnL V~ aq rdA OL~aqOIO~q ~LLUl ;:)Jl'UUl 19;j UU2
~ U~, ':;L/ Uq
..<.
~
"
f
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
- and .
OPSEU
(Implementation of earlier award)
Before' William Kaplan
Sole Arbitrator
Appearances
For the Employer Doug Gray
Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP I
Barnsters & Solicitors i
!
Daniel Fogel
Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP
Barristers & Solicitors
For the Union, Peggy Smith I
Elliot Smith
Barristers & Solicitors
Anne Lee
Grievance Officer, OPSEU !
i
This matter proceeded to a hearing in Toronto on May 11 & 142004. I
I
i
I
i
I
1<'1< 1 U II :J:J 1< AA ILL J:J 41S ( b <:: 4 hLl 0'1 ~Ml Hi If{d U U ,)
U5/U/U4
..-;.
~
I
2
Introduction
In May 2001, MPAC announced a major reorganization. As part of tlus reorganization, a
number of new bargaining unit POSItiOns were filled through a competinve process,
including the posihon of Customer Service Representattve (CSR) A total of 707
applications were received for the 225 unilingual positions available and 57 applications
received for the 37 bilingual positions available. Of the 707 applicants for the unilingual
positIon, only one applicant was screened out at the resume review stage A more
intensIve screening took place WIth respect to the french language positions. A number
of job competitions took place more or less simultaneously In the result, some CSR
applicants obtained other positions. In the end, 674 CSR applicants were interviewed. By
early April, 2002, 262 job offers were made and accepted. A large nmnber of grievances
were subsequently filed. Given the volume of grievances in this Job cornpehhon and in
several others occurring at the same hme, the parties negotiated a protocol for their
expeditious and fair resolution in a process of mediation/ arbitration.
The parties were advised, before the first case was heard, that it was my view, havmg !
carefully considered the collective agreement, the subrmssions of the parties, and the I
\
governing authorities, that the first step in the process was for the candIdates to
establish relatIve equalIty It was also my view that absent exceptional circumstances, \
the assessment would be based on mterview scores Finally, It was indIcated to the
parties that remedy would be tailored as appropriate. !
All potentially affected incumbents were notified of these proceedings and their fIght to
attend and participate Appropriate arrangements for disclosure were made A large
. UtJ/ZI/U'I r~l U~ ~~ rhA OlJ~'10(O~'1 .l'..LIVl ;:)llll Hi IH:I VV'I
- ~
I
3
number of incumbents did attend and made representations. These representations,
together WIth the detailed wntten briefs of the parties and the submlSsions made by
union counsel, the grievors, and management counsel at the hearing, have all been
given careful consideration. It should be noted that a significant number of these
grievances were resolved m mediation, obviating any need for a hearing.
Award
1. James McKellar awarded $4500 00 less deductions required by law Payment to be
made within thirty days of today's date.
2. Norman Freele awarded next CSR position.
3. Grant Shelton should have been awarded a CSR position in London. Declaration to
that effect issued, but no compensation as no losses
4. Moreen Piddington awarded damages of $2500 00 less deductions required by law
Payment to be made within thirty days of today's date
4. All other Godench, Hamilton, Cambridge, Guelph, London, North Bay, Parry Sound,
Sault Ste. Marie, Sf. Catharines and Sudbury CSR grievances dismissed.
Conclusion
I remain seized with respect to the implementabon of this award. I
I
DATED at Toronto this 17th day of May 2004.
IN (------/- I
I
William Kaplan, Sole Arbitrator I