Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-0303.Riemann.81-11-10Under The cy.owN z:!PLOYEES COLLECTI'VE BARGAIWXG ACT Before * THE: GRIEVANCE SETTLD!ENT BOARD Between: Before: J.B,A. Riemann Griever - And - The Crown in Right of Ontario (iMinistry of the Solicitor General) Employer Prof. R. J. Delisle Vice Chairman Mr. I. Thomson Xember Mr. A. R. Rae Member For the Griever: blr. G . Richards, Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees union For the Employer: Elr . 3. Itenson - Senior Staff Relations Officer Civil Service Comm-ssion i?earing : August 24, 1981 - 2 - ;n ci?is qri&s;ance .;oa!nr.e 3. .A. ?.i?.>.a?.:-& cl2 :.ys that on :.larc.i 31, 1981 she :das iir3ngfully ck~r;%< .~I55 defacing govezr.ment ?roserty. 0 3 that ;,a:~ S?.P ’23s _ -4~~~~ I- __ r3- .o--=i to attend at the headouarters of the Or.tario ?rs.Jincial Pol~ice for the purposes of assistir,g 1.7 an investigatioa of her involvement, if any, in the defacir.9 of 3 reqistry ‘book, .At that hearing it was alleged that she was crdered to provide and did provide sa.mples of her handwri*ting. At the outset of the hearing ?!r. itenson, for the employer, argued that this qrievance ;das not arbitrable s either under Section 17(2) of the ‘Crown Employees Collective aargaininq Act or under the collective agreement between the parties, and that therefore this 8oard had no ,jurisdiction to entertain the same. There ijas no alleqatior! t:ha: any provis.ion in the agreement had been violated ar.d the only jurisdiction that the aoard could have to deal with the grievance would be a jurisdiction under Section li(2) of the Crown Employees Collective 3argaining Act which provides: “17(2)In addition- to any other rights of grievance under a collect,ive agreement, an empioyee claiming, . . . Cc) that he has been disc;- plined or ,dismissed cr sus- pe,nded from his employment without just cause, may process such matter in accordance with the grievance procedure provided in the cdllective agreement, and failing final determination under such procedure, the matter may be processed in accordance .xit?. the grocedure fcr final detsraicaticn applicable under section 13. 11 - 3 - before us fram the cases of Cloutier 2r.d :".iniscr*~ 0E Revenue, 20/7i, .1 and Narx and .“.i.nlstry of the Attorney General, 103/77, in that here as there, there zre no “present adverse consequences to the griever”. Ii ii,=s suggested during the argcment on the jurisdictional point that the griever might he prejudiced as a record xas being built u;r against the employee which may have a ?rejUdiCiai * impact on t;he employee’s -position in the futllrn. Filed as Exhibit 1 on the jurisdictionai hearing was a letter from A. w. Goard, Chief Superintendent, S$ecial Services Division , addressed to the grievor, dated June 5, 1381, which., noted : “The possibility OE improper material related to the incident, appearing on your personal file was quashed when we examined the file and found no reference to the incident whatsoever. ” :.1 r . Xichards for the griever agreed at tte end of the argument that the activities of Yarc’h 31, 1331 ccu1d not be characterized as disci?:ine and agreed that the 3oard had no alternative but to dismiss the grievance since it xas . - _ - 1981.