HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-3299.Lum-Yip.20-01-08 Decision
Crown 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# 2018-3299
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
The Association of Management, Administrative and Professional
Crown Employees of Ontario
(Lum-Yip)
Association
- and –
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries) Employer
BEFORE Tatiana Wacyk Arbitrator
FOR THE
ASSOCIATION
Kelly Doctor
Goldblatt Partners LLP
Counsel
FOR THE EMPLOYER Debra Kyle and Cereise Ross
Treasury Board Secretariat
Legal Services Branch
Counsel / Articling Student
HEARING January 7, 2020 (by teleconference)
- 2 -
Interim Decision
[1] The issue before me is whether the Complainant was entry-level qualified for four
identified positions; and therefore, was entitled to be matched to one of those
positions through the AMAPCEO Targeted Direct Assignment (“TDA”) process.
[2] The process for making that determination is set out in Article 27.
[3] In addition, the parties have agreed to an expedited protocol for the purpose of
this matter, and this matter only, and without prejudice or precedent to any other
matter.
[4] Paragraph 11 of that protocol references the Chart AMAPCEO is to provide to
the Employer, in preparation for litigation of this matter. It states:
11. Within thirty (30) calendar days of this protocol being finalized,
AMAPCEO will advise the Employer which position is to be litigated first;
and will also disclose a chart setting out the selection criteria for the First
Position in the left column, and copy-pasted excerpts of the relevant
Employee Form (“EF”) and the Complainant’s job description(s) in the
second column to demonstrate how, in AMAPCEO’s view, the
Complainant met the requisite “entry-level qualifications” of the position
at the time he applied for the position.
[5] This decision determines whether it is open to AMAPCEO to include in its Chart,
and therefore before me, job descriptions of many of the Complainant’s previous
positions, which were not before the decision-makers when he was found not to
have met the entry-level qualifications, as required pursuant to Article 27.
[6] I find it is not appropriate for AMAPCEO to include the Complainant’s prior job
descriptions, which were not before the decision-makers when he was found not
to have met the entry-level qualifications, as required pursuant to Article 27, as
evidence in the litigation of this grievance.
- 3 -
[7] Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, my reasons for this determination will
be included in my final decision in this matter.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 8th day of January, 2020.
“Tatiana Wacyk”
Tatiana Wacyk, Arbitrator