Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-0676.Union.82-03-11IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECT!VE EARGAINiNG ACT Before iHE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: Before: OPSEU (Union Grievance) and Griever The Crown in Right of Ontario (biinistry of tiealth) 1 Empioyer M. Teplitsky,Q.C. Vice-Chairman 5. R. Hennessy Llember E. R. O’Kelly ,&lember For the Grievor: G. Richards Grievance/Classification Officer Ontario Public Service Empioyees Union For the Employer: W. J. Corchinsky Senior Staff Relations Officer Civil Service Commission Hearing: , -2- It ,is with regret that I am compelled to accept i&k. Gorchinsky’s , preliminary submission that the grievance is barred by reason of Article 27.3 of the Collective Agreement. It provides: Article 27.9 - Where a grievance is not processed within the time allowed or has not been processed by the employee or the Union within the time prescribed it shall be deemed to have been withdrawn: It is conceded by Mr. Richards that this provision is mandatory. This Board has no power either by statute or under~ the terms of the Collective Agreement to relieve against its effect. i Mr. Richards argues that the grievance is of a continuing nature. Although this may be a proper characterization, the plain language of Article 27.9 must be respected. This section is operative, whether the grievance is an individual grievance or a Union grievance. It would clearly contemplate policy grievances or grievances of a recurring nature. iMr. Richards also submitted that the parties cannot oust this Board’s jurisdiction through provisions such as Article 27.9 which, would prevent access to a Board of Arbitration. No authority was submitted in support of this submission. In my opinion, provisions regulating the conduct from a procedural perspective of grievances and providing for their dismissal in the event that certain ti?e lines are not adhered to, do not conflict with Section 19(l) of The Act. /--- _ -3- / ,L(r. Richards also relied upon the incorporation by reference in Section 19(Z) of subsecrions ll(11) and ll(12). In my opinion these provision< do not assist in the resolution of this grievance. I indicated to Mr. Gorchinsky that we would only issue declaratory order and ensure that individual grievers whose tiine to grieve had expired could not benefit by our award in an effort to persuade him to permit on a consensual basis this matter to be proceeded with on its merits. It appears that an important question is raised by the Union which requires the resolution of prioi decisions of the Grievance Settlement Board which are said to be conflicting. Mr. Gorchinsky concedes that there is no bar to the Union’s grieving again. In such circumstances why a second hearing should be required is not clear to me. Nevertheless, we are bound to give effect to the agreement the parties have negotiated, notwithstanding its application to what is now a policy grievance , . seeking only a declaration seems rather a waste of time.’ In the result the grievance is dismissed on the grounds that pursuant to Article 27.9 this grievance is deemed to have been withdrawn, ,the matter not having been proceedkd with in ~accordance with the time requirements of the Collective Agreement. - 4 - DATED this M&~&L;TSKY, Q.C.,, Arbitrator I concur S.R. HENNESSY I concw E.R; O'KELLY