HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-1110.Green.09-09-18 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#2009-1110
UNION#2009-0154-0012
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Green)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Attorney General)
Employer
BEFOREVice-Chair
Michael V. Watters
FOR THE UNION
Stephen Giles
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Suneel Bahal
Ministry of Government Services
Counsel
HEARING
September 15, 2009.
- 2 -
Decision
[1]This proceeding was conducted pursuant to the Mediation/Arbitration procedure
set out in article 22.16 of the collective agreement.
[2] The grievor, Ms. Leslie Green, is currently a Client Services Representative in the
Family Court of Justice in Windsor, Ontario. She grieves that she was not offered
a temporary assignment as Acting Trial Co-ordinator in that same Court. A ?Desk
Drop? soliciting interest for the position was circulated in early 2009. It provided
that the opportunity was ?for a period of up to five and a half months subject to the
return of the regular incumbent?. The grievor had previously held the position of
Trial Co-ordinator, on a permanent basis, for a period of five (5) months
commencing in 2007. The position here in issue was offered to another employee
who was working as a Court Clerk in the Family Court of Justice.
[3] The temporary assignment for the Acting Trial Co-ordinator position did not have
to be posted given that its duration was for a period of less than six (6) months. It
is apparent from a review of the collective agreement, and related jurisprudence,
that the Employer enjoys an unfettered discretion in making such assignments.
The exercise of this discretion cannot be reviewed at arbitration in the absence of
bad faith or discrimination. After assessing the submissions of the parties?
representatives, I am satisfied that the decision here being contested was not made
in bad faith or in a discriminatory fashion. Rather, I accept that it was made for a
- 3 -
valid operational reason, namely, the Employer?s desire to cross-train and cross-
use its staff working in the Family Court of Justice. In this regard, I have not been
persuaded that the Employer?s decision was improperly influenced by irrelevant
considerations.
[4] For the above reasons, I find that the Employer did not contravene any provision of
the collective agreement in awarding the temporary assignment as it did. The
grievance is accordingly dismissed. The result in this case is consistent with Vairo,
1593/98 (Johnston) and Rebello, 2005/1165 (Carrier).
th
Dated at Toronto this 18 day of September 2009.
Michael V. Watters, Vice-Chair