HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-4059.Askarzada et al.18-09-21 DecisionCrown Employees Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2014-4059; 2014-4249; 2014-4326; 2014-4327; 2014-4328; 2014-4329; 2014-4330; 2014-4334;
2014-4335; 2014-4501; 2014-4502
UNION# 2014-0534-0026; 2014-0534-0028; 2014-0534-0031; 2014-0534-0032; 2014-0534-0033; 2014-0534-
0034; 2014-0534-0035; 2014-0534-0039; 2014-0534-0040; 2014-0534-0041; 2014-0534-0042
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Askarzada et al) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services) Employer
BEFORE
Daniel Harris
Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION
Seung Chi
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Andrew Lynes
Treasury Board Secretariat
Legal Services Branch
Counsel
HEARING August 23, 2018
-2-
DECISION
[1] This matter came back on for hearing on August 23, 2018. It follows a
decision dated July 17, 2018. By that decision the Employer was ordered to re-
run a job competition from October 2014, the results of which the Union grieved
on behalf of a number of members. There were originally nine (9) grievors. Due
to the passage of time, there are currently five (5).
[2] My decision of July 17, 2018 was made under the authority of Article 22.16,
which mandates that the purpose of a mediation/arbitration thereunder is to
resolve the grievances in an expeditious and informal manner.
[3] The decision of July 17, 2018 was made in the context of the Employer’s
submissions that it was prepared to re-run the job competition. I remitted the
logistics of re-running the competition back to the parties. This decision is
necessitated by the parties’ inability to agree on those logistics.
[4] Specifically, the Union insists, on behalf of the remaining grievors, that the
incumbents be compelled to re-compete for the jobs they were awarded almost
four (4) years ago. It provided jurisprudence where competitions were ordered to
be re-run and dealt with who would be eligible to participate. None of those
cases resemble this situation.
-3-
[5] Here, the Employer submitted that it would re-run the job competition in
accordance with the Board’s jurisprudence. It suggested that it would likely
establish a benchmark score and said that anyone achieving that score would be
placed in the position. It proposed that the incumbents not be required to
compete. In effect, positions would be created for the successful grievors. As I
understand it, there is a reasonably frequent turnover in these positions.
Undeterred by this proposal, the Union has insisted that the incumbents, also
OPSEU members, be required to re-compete for these positions. That is,
positions they have held for close to four years.
[6] In my view there is no labour relations purpose in requiring the incumbents to go
through such a process, given the Employer’s proposal. The grievors may re-
compete, and, if successful, be placed in the positions. If any of them feel that
the new competition was unfairly run, I remain seized to deal with their
complaints.
[7] With respect to the latter, it is for the Employer to run the competition in
accordance with the Board’s jurisprudence. It is not for me to micro-manage that
in advance. If there are complaints, I will hear and determine them.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 21st day of September, 2018.
“Daniel Harris”
______________________
Daniel Harris, Arbitrator