HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-0013.Vukoje.77-01-07CROWN EMPLOYEES 416/964 6426
GRIEVANCE SETTLE$NT .
B~ARO .,
Suite $05,.
77 B~OOP Street iJest
TOROiiTO, Chh.rk.
M&S IM2
‘: IN-THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION ,. Under,The.
CROWN EMPLOYEE;e;SL,;ECTiVE BARGAINING ACT
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
.
Between:.: Mrs: R. Vukoje
And
(The Grievor)
Ontario Housing Corporation'
2. .'. (The Employer)
Before: D..M. Beatty - Chairman f,
Mary Gibb - Member
S.R. Hennessy - Member
Forthe Grievor "1.
Mr. Maurice A. Green,,-Golden-Levinson
Toronto, Ontario , i ?-
For the Employer
Mr., A. P. Tarasuk, Central'Ontario Industrial' /', ,Relations Institute, Toronto, Ontario
Hearings ". I.
Westbury Hotel, Toronto, February 27,~1976'
Westbury Hotel, Toronto, June 3, 1976
Suite 405, 77 Bl'oor St. W.,.Toronto,~October 18, 1976
I’ - r.
-2-
SUPPLEMENTARY AWARD
In the concluding paragraph of our initial award in
Re: Vukoje 13/75 dated flovember 10, 1976, this Board wrote:
%I the rem& m met hold that Mm. Vokoje ‘8
grievunoe mat mcaeed. Accordingly it is
the comlu&m of thie Board that as of the
specific date in ths Spring qf 1913 when she
comenced to perform the a8azgnmep described
on her duty Roeter. Mrs. Vukoje muet be
cLassip:ed a8 and be paid the rate of a Cterk
3. In tFz mlikely evat the par%ies shouM
have difficulQ implementing this award or
detemtikng the precise compemation to ohich
the griever is entitled aa a result of this
award, we shall remzin eeised of thie mtter
for thirty &ys fotkming upon the r.9kaSe
of thicc am&“.
Following the release of that award, on December 2, 1976, this
Board received a letter from Mr. M. Green, Counsel for the grievor,
advising that the parties were experiencing difficulties in
implementing the terms of our award and requesting that this
Board remain seised of the matter for a further period of sixty
days. Subsequently on December 6, 1976, the parties met with the
Board to discuss, inter alia. the matter of implementing the terms
of our earlier award. In the result, and although the parties
were ultimately able to resolve this issue to their mutual
satisfaction, it became apparent to the Board, from the representations
of both of the parties, that the directions we set forth in the
concluding paragraph of our earlier award were in error.
Accordingly and so.that other parties coming before this
Board will not be misled by it, we would advise that it is not
our intention to be guided in the future by the directions contained
-3-
in that paragraph. Rather, and unless there are extenuating
or unusual circumstances we would advise that as a general
principle in awarding compensation to a successful grievant,
:. we would intend to adhere to the views we expressed in &
’ Onturio Pubtic Service Bnployees Union and the Ministry of
the Attorney Cenemt 71/M, wherein we stated:
wlik it is, in our view, clear that
the@nployer failed to comply with the
provisions of Article IO. 3 throughout
the period from January 28, 1976 w&Z
July 12, 1976, we ~CJ not believe that these
employees who initiated their compluint
only on May 25, 1976, may properZy cknh
relief throughout that ,period. To the
contrcrry, ond to hokl otherwise, would be
to improperly peruilize the employer for
the breach of m agreement of which it was
not aware. Thus, where aa here, the breach
of the agreement is in the nature of a
continuing one, boards of arbitration have
consistently .Zimited an emp Zoyee ‘8 right
to ckim damages for the breach~of the
agreement to the period of time within which
it was pemkible to file his &m.mce.
Re: Union Gzw~CO. of C& Ltd. 119721,
2 L.A.C. (2d) 45 IWwmRe: Automatic
Screw Machine Products Ltd. (19721, 23 L.A.C.
396 (Johnstonl. Re: National Auto Radiative
Manufacturing Co. (19671, 18 L.A.C. 326 (Palmer)“.
Dated at Toronto 7th day of January 1977.
(.
..’ -+.
I -
D M Beatty
Chaitkan
. bb
Member
,I Cons
3 R. Hennessy
Mknber