HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-1577.McHarg.07-01-31 Decision
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas Sl. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
reglement des griefs
des employes de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. : (416) 326-1388
Telec. : (416) 326-1396
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
Nj
~
Ontario
GSB# 2004-1577
UNION# 2004-0368-0050
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
BETWEEN
BEFORE
FOR THE UNION
FOR THE EMPLOYER
HEARING
DEADLINE FOR
WRITTEN
SUBMISSIONS
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(McHarg)
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Barry Stephens
Scott Andrews
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Karen Martin
Staff Relations Officer
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
December 14, 2006.
January 17,2007.
Union
Employer
Vice-Chair
2
Decision
INTRODUCTION
The parties have agreed to a Med-Arb Protocol, signed February 27, 2006. It is not necessary to
reproduce the entire Protocol here. Suffice it to say that, as part of the Protocol, the parties have
agreed to a "True Mediation-Arbitration" process, wherein each provides the vice-chair with
submissions, which include the facts and authorities each relies upon. The process adopted by
the parties provides for a canvassing of the facts during the mediation phase under the Protocol.
Arbitration decisions are issued in accordance with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement,
without reasons, and are without prejudice or precedent. The parties were unable to resolve this
matter in mediation.
Accordingly, the matter has been referred to me as a True
Mediation/Arbitration decision under the Protocol.
FACTS
This grievance deals with the time immediately after the grievor started to work at CECC in June
2003. At that time she was classified as an OAG 6. She worked as a clerk in the Duty Office
until approximately February 2004. At that time, the employer implemented a change in the
assignment of work. A number of clerical employees were re-classified to the OAG 8 level,
including the grievor, and were then rotated, on a six-month basis, through a number of positions
in different departments. The grievor argues that the nature of her duties did not change
significantly after the rotation began, and that she should therefore be entitled to the OAG 8 rate
retroactive to the beginning of her time at CECCo The employer responds that the concept of
rotating this group of employees took some time to organize, and that when it was implemented,
many employees were reclassified to higher rated positions to compensate them for the fact that
they would be required to rotate to different positions, rather than remaining in one position.
3
DECISION
The grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 31 st day of January, 2007.