HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-0360.Marles.84-03-12IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between:
Before:
For the Griever:
For the Employer:
Hearing:
OPSEU (James L. Marles)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Transportation and
Communications)
Employer
R. H. McLaren Vice Chairman
T. Traves Member
J. Morrow Member
P. J. J. Cavalluzzo
Counsel
Cavalluzzo, Hayes & Lennon
Barristers & Solicitors
D. W. Brown, Q.C.
Crown Law Office Civil
Ministry of the Attorney General
March 2, 1984
- 2 -
DECISION
On November 28, 1983, a panel of the Board issued a
direction dealing with a dispute arising from the scheduling of
a large number of grievances relating to the designation of
"headquarters" for the purposes of Article 22 of the Collective
Agreement. Pursuant to that Agreement, three panels of the
Board were constituted to convene two days of hearings, each
during January and early February, 1984. This panel is one of those
three and axvened one of its daysof hearinys on January 31, 1984, hearing the
. grievances of Messrs. Speedie and Jones. The second day of
proceedings was convened on March 2, 1984, to hear the grievance
of J.L. Marles.
At the time of the commencement of the second day of
hearings on March 2, 1984, the panel provided counsel to the
parties with its award in connection with the two grievances
heard on the 31st of January. As a result of that award, the
counsel for the parties agreed to settle the grievance of
Mr. Marles in accordance with the prior award of this panel of
the Board dated March 2, 1984.
Mr. Marles grieved that:
"I grieve that M.T.C. 's use of a designated
headquarters has no foundation in the
Collective Agreement and is a method being
used by management to circumvent the
appropriate commuting articles of 'the
Collective Agreement, thereby depriving
me of remuneration for out-of-pocket
expenses incurred in the course of
fulfilling my job requirements in my capacity as a field employee.
- 3-
"I further grieve that the recent use of
a "Designated Headquarters" is a
departure from the established practice,
and has caused me significant monetary
loss and hardship,"
As a result of the parties' agreement through their
counsel to be bound in this grievance by the prior award of
this panel, it was unnecessary for the Board to hear evidence
and deliberate upon the grievance. Pursuant to the counsel for
the parties' agreement, this Board issues the same orders in
respect to this grievance as it has done for the prior two
grievances. Those orders are:
(1) It is ordered that the matter be remitted to the
parties to be dealt with in accordance with the
provisions as set out in the manual, which
requires a headquarter designation which would be
equitable to both parties. That determination is
to be dealt with in accordance with the principles
set out by this panel in its award dated March 2,
1984.
(2) Until the process described in (1) has been
completed, the Grievor is to be placed in the
position that he was in prior to the change in
the administrative practice. This order will remain
effective until a headquarter designation which is
equitable to both parties has been achieved.
(3) It is ordered that the Grievor be compensated for all
monies lost as a result of the breach of the
Collective Agreement by the Employer:
-4 -
Finally, the Board is retaining jurisdiction to
determine the quantum of the monies which would be owing to the
Grievors as a result of these orders as it did in its award.of
March 2, 1984..
DATED at London, Ontario, this 12th day of March,
1984.
R'. H. McLaren Vice Chairman
T. Traves Member
J. Morrow Member