The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2009-2329.Labrecque.10-08-17 en.n EiJJpIo)II!es Grievance Settlement Board smte mo 180 IJlndas 5t WesI TCJRJrm. QBiD IofiG 1ZB Tel (4-16) 326-1388 Fax (4-16) 326-1396 Commission de riglement des griefs des~dela eor.ome ~ Ibeau mo 100. rue IJlndas Ouest TCJRJrm (0nIari0) M5G 1ZB Tel: (4-16)326-1388 T~ : (4-16) 326-1396 ontario G8B#2009-2329, 2009-3373 UNION#2009-0644-0002, 2009-064-4-0003 IN THE MATIER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COlLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT BETWEEN BEFORE FOR THE UNION FOR THE EMPLOYER lIEAKING Before THE GRIEVANCE SETILEMENT BOARD Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Labrecque) - aad - The Crown in Right of Ontario (MinisUy ofNatmal Resources) NimaI Dissanayake Mad BucIay Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer Tracy Demal Minis1Iy of Government Services Manager - Cmpomte Advisory Services August 12, 2010_ U_n Employer Vtre-Chair -2- Decision [I] Two grievances dated June 29, 2009 and November 18, 2009 respectively, filed by Mr_ Jess Labrecque (~e grievoi") came before the Board for mediation-arbitration pursuant to article 22_16 of the collective agreement. Since mediation efforts did not result in a resolution of either grievance, both parties requested that the Board determine them by rendering a decision. [2] In reac.h1oe the decision herein set out, I have taken into consideration the facb; presented at the hearing, documentation submittaL and the positions advanced by both partics_ [3] The grievor was employed from 1964 as a seasonal employee by the Minis1Iy of Lands and Forests, the predecessor of the present Minis1Iy of Natural Resources_ He continued employment as a seasonal employee with the Minis1Iy of Natural Resources until 1991, when he was appointed to the classified service_ [4] The grievances are related and raise two issues_ First, it is claimed by the grievor that his continuous service date has been incorrectly calculated as a result of the employer's failure to take into account certain periods of employment he had in the 196O's and 1910's_ Second, the grievor claims that he is entitled to buy back pension credits for the period 1964 to 1911, with the employer sharing the cost_ [5] The employer took the position that neither grievance has merit. It submits that the grievor's continuous service date has been correctly calculated It relied on a number of documents dated back in the early 1990's, wherein the grievor had acknowledged that his continuous service date was March 26, 1985_ The employer submits that under the OPSEU Pension Trust Plan that existed at the time, the grievor had a limited window of 24 months in which to buy back his pension credits and that the grievor had not done 50_ V cry recently the OPSEU Pension Trust Plan was amended to allow employees to buy back pension credits for past service outside the 24 month window, but it clearly stipulates that the full cost of the buy back must be bome by the employee_ Thus, the employer submits that it is still open to the grievor to buy back his pension credits, but he must bear the total cost. -3- [6] Aside from the merits of the grievances, the employer submitted that the grievances are inarbitrable for several reasons_ One ground advanced was that the grievances were filed beyond the mandatory time limits set out in article 22 of the collective agreement. [1] The explanation offered on behalf of the grievor for the significant delay in filing the grievances was that the grievor trusted the employer to do th1nes correctly_ It was submitted that fairness requires that his grievances be heard and granted, because it was the employer, not the grievor, who made the mistake_ [8] There is no dispute that the grievances are untimely_ The delay in filing the instant grievances is exl:naue_ The grievor is seeking to remedy mistakes allegedly made by the employer in the 1960s and 19105_ I find that the explanation offered is not sufficient to cause me to exercise my discretion to extend time limits in the circumstances_ [9] Accordingly, I find that the two grievances before me are untimely, and therefore inarlritrable_ Given that disposition, it is unnecessary for me to address the employer's alternative arguments as to inarbitrability or the merits of the grievances_ Both grievances are hereby dismissed Dated at Toronto this 16th day of August 2010_ ~..... '~..~ ' . , ~ '. . -, . .:',' ..., .... .,: : ., :. r. ; ',.,.,', .. ;:.' ,. , .,'" ".:;~~.~~:~ Nimal y3I(e, lCe-Chair