HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-2267.Lee et al.10-10-19 Decision
Commission de
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
UqJOHPHQt des griefs
Board
dHVHPSOR\pVGHOD
Couronne
Suite 600 Bureau 600
180 Dundas St. West180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 7pl. : (416) 326-1388
x (416) 326-1396 7pOpF
Fa
GSB#2009-2267, 2009-2268, 2009-2269, 2009-2270, 2009-2271, 2009-2272, 2009-2273, 2009-2274,
2009-2275, 2009-2276
UNION#2009-0154-0020, 2009-0154-0021, 2009-0154-0022, 2009-0154-0023, 2009-0154-0024,
2009-0154-0025, 2009-0154-0026, 2009-0154-0027, 2009-0154-0028, 2009-0154-0029
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public ployees Union Service Em
(Lee et al)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Attorney General)
Employer
BEFOREM.V. Watters Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNIONStephen Giles
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYERSuneel Bahal
Ministry of Government Services
Legal Services Branch
Counsel
HEARING
October 13, 2010.
- 2 -
Decision
[1]This proceeding was conducted pursuant to the Mediation-Arbitration Procedure set out in article
22.16 of the Collective Agreement.
[2] In or about July 2009, the Employer temporarily assigned an employee working as a Trial
Coordinator, at the OAG 11 level, to a Client Services Representative position. This latter position was
classified as an OAG 8. As there was work reasonably available to this employee in the Trial
Coordinator position, the Employer was obliged under article 8.3 to continue her salary at the higher
OAG 11 rate.
[3] Grievances were subsequently filed in July 2009 by ten (10) employees working as Client
Services Representatives. These grievors claim, in substance, that they too should be paid at the OAG
11 rate for the period the other employee mentioned above receives such rate while working as a Client
Services Representative. Additionally, one (1) of the grievors, Ms. Line Duguay, also claims that she
should be placed in another Client Services Representative position which she had won through
competition. Ms. Duguay asserts that the Employer has improperly delayed her placement into the
specific position in question.
[4] After meeting with the grievors and the Employer representatives, and having had the
opportunity to consider the submissions of the parties, I conclude that the grievors are not entitled to the
relief sought.
[5] As stated, the Employer was contractually bound to continue to pay the OAG 11 wage rate to the
employee temporarily assigned from the Trial Coordinator position to the Client Services Representative
position. In this regard, I am satisfied that the initial assignment, and its subsequent continuance, was
- 3 -
made for a legitimate operational purpose. While this employee is entitled to the higher wage rate, I can
find no support in the collective agreement for the grievorV¶FODLPWRVXFKUDWHZKLOHWKH\SHUIRUPWKHLU
regular OAG 8 duties. I further note that the events complained of by Ms. Duguay followed her success
in a posting in the Spring of 2010. In my judgment, the issues arising therefrom are not captured by her
earlier grievance of July 20, 2009.
[6] For the above reasons, all of the grievances are denied.
th
Dated at Toronto this 19 day of October 2010.
M.V. Watters, Vice-Chair