HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-0271.Allin et al.81-06-25IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
'Under The
CROWN EMF'LOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between: G. Allin et al
Before:
- And -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of the Environment)
E. E. Palmer, Q.C. Vi,ce Chairman
A. G. Stapleton Member
L. Robinson Member
For the Grievor: I. Rolland, Counsel Cameron, Brewin & Scott
For the Employer: R. B. Itenson
Civil Service Commission
Hearing: May 20, 1981
i i
I
a bl A R D 2. -----
The @resent arbitration invol,res a number of
grievances filed, amongst others, by Mr. G. Allin, alleging
,that they had'certain rights regarding their pension funds on
the transfer of certain works hitherto operated by the Xinistry
to the City of Chatham. This grievance was not .resolved by
the parties and proceeded to.arbitration, a hearing in relation
to which took place in Toronto, Ontario, on 20,Nay 1981. At that
time a question arose regarding the jurisdiction of this Board
to deal with this matter.
Essentially, . the Zmployer took the view inat this
Board had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter as there is no
basis for the claim in the Collective Agreement,nor was there
anything in Section 17 (2) of the Crown Employees Collective
Bargaining Act, 1972, Stats. Ont. 1972, c. 57, as am., to
rectify this situation. Consequently, it was urged that the
instant grievance Was nota?roper subject for either the grievance
procedure established by the Collective Agreement between the
parties or for arbitration. Put another way, the Employer urged
that the only ,proper grievances which could be heard by this aoard
are those which, according to Article 27.1 of the Collective Agree-
ment-relate to "the interpretation, application, administration
or alleged contravention" of the Collective Agreement. in these
circumstances, it was urged that the rights in question were
governed by other legislation, which, the Employer claimed, had
been followed completely.
.
Numbers of authorities to support .the general
propositions of law put forward by the Employer were then cited.
For reasons which will become apparent, it is unnecessary to
examine these in any detail.
Essentially, the Union agreed with the general
propositions advanced by ,the Employer regarding the resolution
of this matter. Specifically, then, the Union agreed that there
exists no jurisdiction in this Board to hear this matter. Quite
properly, however, it pointed out that this Board is in no position
to indicate that what was done in relation to pension benefits was
corrects as we have no jurisdiction to do so.
Consequently, this Board takes the position that
we have no jurisdiction to deal with this matter and, more h
specifically, make no finding with respect 'to the validity of
any acts taken by the Employer.
DATED at London, Ontario,
I concur/dksszt
I concur/-t
A. Ci. StapLeto'n