HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-1463.Beek et al.08-01-28 Decision
Commission de
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
règlement des griefs
Board
des employés de la
Couronne
Suite 600 Bureau 600
180 Dundas St. West 180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396 Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2004-1463, 2004-1473, 2004-1814, 2004-1985
UNION# 2003-0517-0069, 2004-0517-0055, 2004-0517-0061, 2004-0517-0078
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Beeket al.)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFOREVice-Chair
Ken Petryshen
FOR THE UNION Tim Hannigan
Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
FOR THE EMPLOYER Simon Heath
Counsel
Ministry of Government and Consumer
Services
CONFERENCE CALL
January 22, 2008.
2
Decision
I have a number of grievances before me filed by Correctional Officers (?COs?) claiming
that the Employer violated the Collective Agreement when it placed them at the first step of the
pay range of the CO2 classification after rehiring them. They claim that they should have been
treated like other COs who were rehired and placed at a step above the start rate. The Employer
took the position that the GSB did not have the jurisdiction to entertain these grievances. In a
decision dated July 12, 2007, I determined that the GSB does have the jurisdiction to hear these
grievances. The grievances were scheduled to be heard commencing on February 4, 2008.
I participated in a conference call with counsel on January 22, 2008 to discuss procedural
issues. Having regard to the positions taken by counsel as to how this matter should proceed, I
make the following directions.
The Union is directed to provide to counsel for the Employer, no latter than six weeks
from the date of this decision, a written statement setting out the basis for each grievor?s claim
that he or she was not placed at the right step of the CO2 classification upon rehire. The
statement for each grievor shall include the name of the institution from which they left and the
date of separation, the name of the institution they returned to and when they returned, and what
employment, if any, they were engaged in during the interim.
The Employer is directed to provide to counsel for the Union, no later than six weeks
from the date it received the written statement from the Union, a written statement setting out the
reasons why each grievor was placed at the first step of the CO2 classification and why it has not
3
contravened the Collective Agreement with respect to their placement. The statement from the
Employer shall indicate whether the information provided by the Union is different from the
information that it has about a grievor. Its statement shall also provide information about the
employees identified by the Union as falling within the comparator group, including what
institution they left and when, the institution they returned to and when they returned, what
employment, if any, they had during the interim, and at what step of the pay range each
employee in the comparator group was placed and why.
I will leave it to counsel to determine if another conference call would be useful once
each party has had the opportunity to review the written statement of the opposite party. As
agreed between counsel, the hearing dates in February of 2008 are adjourned and the hearing will
now commence on Tuesday, May 20, 2008.
th
Dated at Toronto, this 28 day of January 2008.
Ken Petryshen ? Vice-Chair