HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-2206.Faler.08-11-17 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#2008-2206
UNION#2008-0234-0231
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Faler)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFORE
Barry Stephens Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNIONStacey Zafiriadis
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Diane Cotton
Manager ? Human Resources Strategic
Operations
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
HEARINGOctober 29, 2008.
2
Decision
[1]
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 a ?True
Mediation-Arbitration? process, wherein each provides the Vice-Chair with submissions, which
include the facts and authorities each relies upon. This decision is issued in accordance with the
Protocol and with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement, and is without prejudice or
precedent.
[2]
The grievance dates back to 1989. The grievor was terminated in 1989 and was
subsequently reinstated in a decision issued by the GSB on April 23, 1990. The grievor was
awarded full compensation, which was paid in the 1990 tax year.
[3]
In 1995, the grievor discovered that his CPP contributions were greatly reduced in 1989 as
a result of his termination. He attempted to deal with the matter with the government of Canada.
In 2008 he filed a grievance, alleging that the employer failed to fully compensate him, given the
shortfall on his CPP in 1989. The employer responds that the grievance is out of time, and ought
to have been filed at least in 1995 and likely much earlier. In addition, the employer asserts that
the grievor?s ?loss? is only notional, or de minimus, given that the grievor is likely to hit the CPP
maximum eligibility regardless of what happened in 1989, and the union has not demonstrated
otherwise.
3
[4]
After reviewing the submissions of the parties and the collective agreement, it is my
conclusion that I do not have jurisdiction to decide this matter given the untimely filing of the
grievance.
th
Dated at Toronto this 17 day of November, 2008.
Barry Stephens, Vice-Chair