Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-0392.Maghsoudi.85-08-16_ .. 392/82 THE CROWN EMPJAW’EES CoLLEcrryE BARGASNINC ACT Refae THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: OPSEU (A. Mawudi) ad Crievor The Crown in Rlght of Ontario (The Ministry of Tramuortatian and Commmicatiad FatheGrkor: FathEmobyer : Employer c. J. Brandt YiCe-chai~~ R. Rlasell Member A.G. Stapleton Member M. Rotman camel Rotman, hgdanaki Barrlsten & Solicitors Mr. Wallace Kenny coyel Hid0 Maley Hamilton Stewart Storie Barrlsters & Solicitors Mar& 15,1985 May 16, 1985 3 Thfhr grimor. Mr. Akbar bhghsoudi. griem his 191u) and I%1 pwformanu apphds. It is useful to set out in full his statement of grievrnca and the eettlement e which ho nquiree. - I ‘I grim0 that tbo appreisle made on my prrformsnce in 1980 and 1981 are both inappropriate aad prejudiced, md are &signed for inWon purposes, and to junifp mMagMLent’r, mom specmally Mr. Smith’s, discrimifuwry behaviour tovards me. Both appteisal~ are in contdiction vith the recent Arbivstion Board3 Decision end Evalrurion of my quality of vork and eervicee following my grievance on the appraisal of 1979. The decision released on February 3 - 82 pfhted my perform+cr m bring outstanding md my quality of tirk and auiwde LI being fu more superior for thr poeition in vhich 1 have beon unjustly fdrced lo h&U in . , for more than seven pan. Both appmieab tmdte the hsoty and intimi&ive re8ction of m8nqemont to my grionnce of 1979. At a mUZer of fact. since 1979 I have beed denyod (sic) dequao rw~onsihilitia 8pproprW to my wlI demonstmbd capability. inhidve and undenpbla (sic) ucomplishments. Vor 8 beam umssment of the aiWatiun plum fofor to my commas stt8chmd to both appmisds, 8nd the related cormspundence exchenged during thie perid.) Roth rppraisds undeminr alI ucomplishments. and omit any mting, (vhich hu prmn to be outzrmding) for my prwent position.) thrfeby leaving thr mador to LIwI my perfotnunce on the unjust comment enclosed - the only souru of information svaihble to him or her.’ kttlement Required 1) Ruth appmids oi 1980 snd 19N ehould be removed from my ri0. 2) Use of wch unjtis! appkisale on my performance LS a mans to cfew personal accounLs should be halted. 3) Prior to the introduction of any new rppraisle on my performance. *e Board2 decision on the grievance of the 1979 apprrirrl should be properly implemented. Aleo the folloving vhich are at then present under investigation by’ the Office of the Ombudsman, should be carefully consided: F . . - the inlimiduive end discriminatorp titude of my mmsgm ~momudbosloppod. - proper use of my eervicn and nlurble experience md initbtiw should be made by allocating to mo reepea&biLiLirr sppropriuc to my wll demonand capability and oubbnding performancr md rccompliehmonts. - my promotions and/or rec&ssifiation. long over due u a reSult of my mmsgon’ prejudiced khaviour. must be recompensted retroactive b when they wra due. - I ehouid be treetmd ee rqually so othen and revuded according b my ~compLishments and perfarnuncee as compued b othen in simihr positiens. - adequate mewurn should be taken to halt the revengefull (&cl attitudes of thosr’rlemenb vho pm-d in ktwiorstin( my reputation snd undermining my opportunitia for the purpoaa of justifying their ovh orong doings and prejudiced behaviour.’ Counsel for the b&&try raised a number of pmliminary mattan of vhich notice vw given UJ counspl for the Union ind thr~grievor. Again it b best to ml out those mat&n by quoting dir&y ha tha htwr. 1) Theghmnc0vithmp0dbb0thsppddsv8eriiin~ untimely manner and should nel be heard t)~rol~nl.rhd~m~raq~bptheOtirPorvhichit 8ppmJpriate to an emhmtion gfiw8aoe. nsmmly. h&vial the evmhwiow removed horn thk mumI. haa been cemplbd vu. 3)Th*grieverhesqwebdusnmdythUthoprior1979 decieion 0r the griwum souhnont boa-d k pmpeay implementad. Noththsbding that the yiairrrg beGeves that thiShU~bkMplUO,itbbSthOpWiththrrth~BOUd h8snojuriedictiononthisgriemnabdrrlviththe impbmw8tion 0r 8 prior mrd. 4) Thegriemrhaesleomqu~~hekrecleuZ~. In&t, ~the griever ha been ncbmifii since the due 0r the griev8ac0. In My tint, the collectivr 8grament ab out a epocific griev~u process rot clrsificuion grievume in Anicle V vhich heo not ken complied vith. Furthermore. thie comedy ie not available or appropriate in a grievance concerning ov8lwlieer. 3) Thagrievor has also requested u a kmedy ELI hb impruper ovshmtion that cdul consideration k given to dlegations vhicb M under reviev by the Ombudsmm Orrice. Such mUen wm considered md rejectad in the Ombudsmro’s Rkpert ad thsreforo should be treated u resolved. 3. . I 1 The facU respecting the issue of timsline~~ are not in serious dispute. The \ \ \ grievor vu hr0rplcd 0r hh 1980 pefformanco appraisal in Juno 0r 19Sl. EOVwOf, he did sot grieve it until July ).19g2 more than one yw later. His 1%1 perrormwo *~~nbrl pu gken to him on or about June 2,1982. That performance rppmid vu ah0 grieved on .IuIy S. 1982. The collective yrmme~ipmido~ that an employee vho believes ho has a complaint shall ri discuss the complaint vith his supervisor vithin 20 days 0r ri becoming a& or it (273.1.) and if it is not suirrfrctorily settled by the suporpisor vi&n 7 days it may be processed to Stop one Which involves the filing 0r a vriwn grievance vith the supe&sor) vilhin an additional 10 days. Clearly there 9 be liti question that the grievance againot the 19M performance rpprrissl ir fu out of Lime. The grimor offemd tvo remmu for that delay. First, the rpprrial vu given to . performagce appmhL and ha did nolv8nt b prajudice his poWon in thu prqcwding by filing anothrr mm vi& fe~pct b the su~cecdi& ykr. Lndd he stated th& henOudwlthe19b0~o~a~pninl~~u~~m~bp~.f~to in- him inb vithdraving his 1979 grievance in esc+utgo ror an amendment to his performonco appraisl. Secoadly. ho stated that he had been attempting to raohe the problem inbrady v&hour the wed for us of the grievaaco pro&urn owl W il vu o* vhen that process rpprmtly hi&d thu he choeo b grime. In hgust of Ml he vrob b Mr. I. J, &van. thr Director 0r Porsonael ror the Minisq orTrwport8tion and Communications complaining of, among other things, the vay he vas being treated by Mr. Smith. Subsespueritly, ti September of 1981 he vu given some usuraaces by a Mr. Upbell that he vouid talk b bfr. Smith, and th+t henceronh any problem related to the grievur’s h0rk.ixqrebtiOnehip wxz.ld be r&3X& directly t0 .?lr. Campbell. Consequ+ly, vhen in June of 1982 the griever received mother prrforPlrnce qpmhl from Mr. SmU he cppueatly c-e b the conclusion tiut b efforts at having his problems vith Mr. Smith tveolved inter- wre not going to k sicmsfU T’hw, he decided b seek his remedy under the Wee proudun end grieved both hb 19M and his I%1 rppr&ele at the m time. The widener is not entirely cleu vith respect to the quietion 0r th0 timelima 0r thr griavmce 8gainst the m3ipd0hftcO qipm. A3 indicu~d thu vu ntiived on or a@out Juno 2. Ml. Eowver. there ir some confusion 8s b rho is the .prbon vlah vhom the grievur b expecbd to lnitiUe the promo under the terms of Article 272.1. Although he received his performsnco appraisal directly from Mr. Smith~ditpuMr.Snrithvhohdsign~birelrirmrdldnot~aitv~~ ,, Indeed he vu surpriad b have ncelved a pwformance apprsid done by Smith u he , vu under the im&esoion that Smith vu not b UVe uty more invokwat in the wakutien of hh .wrk. ConoeqwnUy, ho spoke vich Mr. R&lie rho had been pmeent uths~~~.~pkUM~the~~rthuilt.Snrirh~nobngor’ ~boinvuhdiahisoWwtion. EoasbdMr. &ddiovhyb¶r.S~rustiUiavo~ mdbir.Mdie tooLrhe~o~~~p~mdsid~hemold~MoT them. L&r (one or tw days) he reWmed vith the appraisals and &ed the m b ddhiscommenbbthem. Itisnotcleuabhuvlongthisbokhim. Thegriwor vanrb~hirU~nS~onJuno~~dthr~~~N~onJu~5.1~. In viev 0r the position vhich the bfinisq uhs cancomiag the quesion 0r timelit& it is unneceewry ror t&e bard to emhute the sufficient of the rams ror the &by in rtig the gfi~vaaco. The bbistry t&w the position that the pfovisiow of the agreement twpgct&timeQnes M msnduorg and thst, bnce it is &lished thrt they hrve been breached; it does not matter vhether the time period has been missed by L yeu or by a day or vhothar the reasons for missing it u-e justifiib or not. Moreover, the bfinhy did not take the Uernuive position thrt, in the event thu t&o Board wro b f’irnd the time previsions psrmkivr, the Loud ought not to orerciw such i 5. discretion that it may have to relieve against that breach. Thus, the Ministry’s case on the question 0r timeliness stands or falls on the question 0r the m8adu0ry or pmUimivs Chuuter or the prov+ions of t&e collective qreemont. If they M found b be permissive ve bke the bfininry’s position lo bo that. leaving eside the other preliminary matters tatsed. the hoard vould have jurisdiction to enbrtaia the grievance. If the prwbions wwround to be mandatory the grievance Qaiwt the 19wI rppmid is clsuly untimely. Hwever. there vould remain a question vith respect to the grievance against the Ml appraisal. that is, vhether or not it vu in fact filed vithin the prescribed limhations set dovn in the collective agreeant. We consider fii the question of the chamcter of the timeliness provisions. Article 27.11 providm that vhen a grievance is not pmcmsed vithin the time elleved ‘it shall be deemed to have been vithdmvn’. This language, in conjunction vith . . Article 27.14 to the effect that the Board hu no jurisdiction to ‘alter. change, amend or enhrge my provision 0r the bllocti~0 Agreementm.‘leads C0un00l for the biiniey b - . sublnitfhrrvhe~agri~rhuI~~roSomplpviththd~lirniu~~hao (, grievance vhich is property kfom the hoard and the hoard uu have ao jurisdiction b hearit. There is some jurisprudence of the Board vhich nukm it clew that vhon the grlwnnu complains of 8 violuion 0r the collectlye qmement the rimtdnam prwisions M mmd~ory. (Goh#n. 321m, M 141/Q) Eowver.vhore the griovaco uism pursuant to Section l#t) or the Crovn Employwe Collective Bargaining Act. the iawo bocomm more complex. Section lg 0r the Act identifies cart&i subjects rt.Ming vithin the exclusive function of management not subject to collective bargaining. Included among these are 'appraisd 6.18(l) (b)). ~ Hovever. the stakory scheme does not deprive, employees of any and all rights to grieve concerning these matters. Article 18(t) provides u follovs: In addition to any other rights of grievmce under a collective agrwmont ; an employ00 chiming ,...., f 7. (b) that he hes been l ppmiwd contrary to the gmemiag principles 8nd sbnduds;... may pmcms such matbr in rccordaau vith the griwaace procedure pmvided in the cclbctive agmemenl, ad Ming find deukminuioa under such pmcedun. the lnutrr m8y k procomd in accord~co vit4 the pnxodun ror rid debrmimtion applicable under eection 19. (Section 19 is the prwiskm pmvlding rot laferenco b the Grimace Settlement The issue coacerns the extant to vhich timeliness provisions or collective yreoments CM have a ptwjudicid imp&3 on the Obtubry right b grieve eet out ia s. lg(2) or the Act. In thie ae the subject mubr of the grievance b tvo apprabab. ~us,itcon~~rmrtrrrou~~thoco~crivo~nuntmdtheyirmr’s~Lb Ihb question b one vhich has been a&wed by 8 numbor of payola of rhb Board. Tllobadingcmeis~w78). Ihbwsrgrimnw@ltsLdiuhuge ’ (honw it roll under s. lg(t) (cl oftho Act) md Uto A4iniey rrimd 1 pm- objection b tho orroct that the m8nd8bfy time limits or the qrwment M not ken mt. The Union argued that mnduorp time limb am inconsbbnt vith the schom 0r grievanw arbitration mnctioned under section 18 md 19 of the Act rad should not. on that account. k effoctivo to bar 8 grimace horn going to arbitmioo. The bud r&wed cmm in the priv8b mbr u roll m 10 oulier dubion of &is Board (IpEEp 21/76) md cOme b the conclusion that the argument or the Union should sucwd. Th,%ud summarized the rewoaing in lnnrp in the rollwing brms: -.... the Grknu Settlement Board bee previously held that the right grmbd ill individual employee b grieve hi, m pursueat b rrction 17(21 kurmntly lg(2)) of the Crovn Employeee Collective Bargaining Act ceanoc be denied by mp pfuvision in the collective agreement entered into by the Union end the Cmvn in Right of Oat&o hpmsented by the hnyement bud of Cabinet). To hold othervin vould be to a. . . albv the paaim b act conwary b the Legislrrum’s inbnc m l xpmead in the sbtub as a vholo and e&on 17 (lg) in particular. vhich bee bwn.to create a scheme Or hbour mUions regulation ror the public sector vhich sUvngly aad u~Quowly endomes the unttsmmelled right 0r individurl l rep&yea b griovo their dbmisd or Olhor dbdphbe.’ (p. 19) .Camsel for the bbislry invited us to disregard Kpplinnrnd b take a diffemnt and independint viev of the m&g and erfoct of section M(2) Of the Crwn Empbyws Collwtivo Rugainia~Act vich mgvd b the mubr 0r timdin provieions of the colledivq~sgreoment. It vos suggested that the error vhich the Baud rell into in w vu b CmU the right b arbiUab 9s an rbeolute mlher than a ~wnditionel right. It ves further suggeeted that the Board erred in extending the reeeoning h &gg, v&ich couneel conwded vw correct in respect of a provision in the wlktive agrwmant vhich pwented probationary employwe rrpm rig a j3rim~w. b the sitwli~~in vhich the isuo coqcorned not the right b griv itself bat mthor lhhi queetion ee b vhethor or not that right vee being erpeditiouely pursued by the - . . grhwr. bmsel ugued tbU the right b pfoces a griev8ace throo#h to arbitralien is a’ wnditind right thnt Jpzrn &nit vitb a sitwtion in vhich the griever vee prevented rrom ever gouing b the pmcess. Ewewr, onw the right b me 8 griwucw b wnwded, m it is hm, the ueentM dent&e or the etetuto we met and the quo&g becomes one ofdSbfd& g vhothor or not the grievance ie properIy pmcaeed. It is vgwd that the kogwge 0r 8. H(2) eetsbliehr the wnditionevhkh muet ok met in order lh8l a griWMc0 k pm&wod b uMlmlion. Fiml, it mu* be pmcsmod ‘in sccordaace vith rho grievance procodum prmidod in the collective agreement.. Thus. if there M t&e limits vithin vhich various stops must be taken. a g&v& mub follov thorn in order to bo able to take 8dvantagr oi the stotutory right to grieve. sowndiy. it is argued the! the right b process a grievance ‘in accotice vith the procedure for fiisl determination applicable under wetion 19’ (i.e. arbitsution) matune ‘hi&g final dobrminaiion under such procedure’ (in. under the grievance :E . :. 9. ptvwdufe of the colkciw agreement.) Rem it is ugwd t&U then b ban no rm-0 0r a !lnrl drbrmhtion under the grievance prucadum. thu cho p8rtia ham nogotlnbd 8 chwe kticb 27.11) vhich contemplates thrtvhem the time ptwisione ~not~nmat~e~co~k~mrdbh~~nv~~nmdtbu such provision constitubs r ‘fhl debrrainuion’ vithin the meaning of Section H(2) 0r th0 kt. a- This i%not the first occasion that the visdom of Kg&g hu some under atbck- bd0mutbBoub. In~(~tar(td)~9)rprnolorthirBaud~in~to. rehsa b rollor g,linn. It appears rr0m the report 0r the BOO& decisbn in that see that counsel sought b make eeeentiaUy the same ugument as vas pmsonbd b us in the insunt~.thrtL,burgothoBoudbmw(niElrdiQinctionk~nrproririan. . vhich hare 8 grievsnw outright and one vhich purporrr b mgulab hov a grievanw should he channolkd through agreed upon proceAums. EOWVW, rhr Board, g of _ . In~(1/~0)thoBoatd,invhrtmurtbn~uoMtri,rsnt somwhat fbrthor in soggmting Umt Keeling be mcon&bred. .St rqaded Cbmenb u ‘oxpmming some he&&on 6th zwpect to the deci&n in Keeling’ and suggssrod that ‘...A m8y wu be, p&ululy in the tight 0r cOrrrin doci0i0ns 0r the wum vhich have been issued eince Kding vu decided. that the Board3 inbrpmbtion of section lg of the Crwn LiQlO~e+ G&.itive Bugaining Act should be mwnsidomd. The .‘. provision in 8 collective agreement of procedural provisions, such u time limits. governing the exercise of a right should DOL be mad, ve ctdak. u wntmry w the sbtubry es&bhhm~nt of l&U right.’ ne c~ncludiag eeataace appeus to uhpl aad Notvithstanding this it has been indicated him that vhere the issq concerns the interpmuion of a sutute rather then the interpretation of the collective y~emen~itmapiie~'b~'apprrrprir(cforIheBorrd~ adop!omorerelaxedstandardfor dctormining vherher or not it should reconsider its ovn decisions. In such cueS negotdion betxeen the parties is less effective as a remedy against ill considered decisions of the Board. What is left ia judicial reviev, legislative rrnandmenl or a 10 accept the validity of rho distinction advanced by counsel in rhis case between abeohm bars. vhich do conflictvith Lhe statutory inunr, and negotiated regulation of the pmceslng of a grlevmce. Apart from these trro M it appears that the Eard hu consistenUy folked w. Indeed the Board in w staaed rhu it has ‘been gene!xUy accepted u established in the Bwd’s juris~fudence. The most recent cese to vhich ve vere referred VU &&&((nU83), the avard in vhich vas issued on April 24.19f& That ves a clasaXic&on grievance to vhich the Employer raised a preliminuy objection mhued to timeli&. In dismissing the.objection a.~ to timelineSthe Board statad that the ‘defiiitive’ case in point vas wvhich the Board noted vu mimed by the Divisional Cam (from vhich decision lam to appeal to the Court of Appeal vu denied) qd vhich has been folloved bf t+e Bovd in ‘a number of kter cases. aohg them -. Apart entimIy from the merits of the argument concirning the proper intarpreutlon to be placed on section 1W2) of the Act t&e& is& queetion as to the , propriety of disregarding vhat appeam to be a veil established and consbtont jurisptpdence. In w (t/n) the Baud stated thet one penel of the Baud should foI.Iov the decisions of other paielt of the Eoyd in the abeace of being persuaded that the previous decision n manifestly erroneous. Gene&y the solution to Bard do&ions vhich erato difficulties for +e parties is to look to the bargaining We tier than to ask the Board itself to reconsider and reverse its ovn decisions. rs 11. . . ncoasidomtioa by the had. In M the M coaaidofwd judichl reviov md Iegislaiive amendment to be gearmlly unlikely md uas~iubla 8s L remdhl rlt8rnuiv~. Conaquentty, the only mcoum Ml is the Wrd itself. Eovwer, h&ng tid thu the Eaud in Clemenu vu very swisiv~ ta the dagom inrohod in mconsidmaioa by the Bawd of its ovn prorious d&ions. Aa thr Baud them stUad....ThU is aot to sty the Beard vould vi& t4 encourage mpa&d mliligating of our ddsioas invohing statutory iaterpmtion. Nor vould ve vish ta sw our villingness to mconsider suck mau8rs constnwd u aa inviWioa to oacoumge mpeued reverssls of our pmious decisions. Rather. ve am simply suggesting thrtia thou CUM in vhich the other mmedhl romms am mluimly less rvailsbla, the Bosrd may vish (0 mlu somevh8t itt -dud of mien in mconsidwing pmvious . ddions: . A number of faclors persuade us thatve ougJa1 not to met upon 8 comidytion of the cormctoes of Ro Keeling. Firrt. qa iadiatsd In Uments, thorn arm strong md mor&oriow ugumeats on both sides of the iuuo md tho kud hu consistently made L choicr u to vhich uguments to wept. Tom PO to fwpen the mat&r nov and rccopt tho ocher argunwntsit t dimcult to sb vhUwuld prwmnt 0 !brLher mwnsihdon 0Sour~by~pxrL. Secondly, Kwling is roll established la the hard’s jurisprudmw aad pmsumsbly hu been died upon by the pu%ies in their dealings with one MoIhBr. The asas mlied upon u calling into question the visdom of Kwling M aot strong cues. Clmeats oxpmssly maffll it. While Mffimgor suggests that the hrd in Clomoau expressed &me heshtioa vith mspoct to Keeling w do not, vith msp0.q. mad Clemonts as going thrt far. Apu( from those cases the Bowi pmctico vith mspoct to Keeling hu been uniform. Thirdly. no&g hu bean put before us vhich vould iadicue that Keeling has in fact cma!edgrobloms ktvoon the pa&as. Couassl ugued Thor if Section 18(t) is seen u carblishing an absoluu right to ubitrw grievances lrmsprcrive of rhothor or dot the griwaco procdum had beon complied with the pmcma vould break dovn. Thu may or may not k SO. We do sot know. It is lastructlw hovtior to aou rhu the RoanI in Clemenu stud that the experience 81 the Board since Keeling did not suggest t&u the da&on ‘has fundment8lly undermined or impaired the -co msolution pmcessss vithin tho Ontario p&c semia. tkasequ5ntly. ve pmhr to be guided by );onlipn ia respect of LMS issue md hold that non compliance vi& the time provisions of the collective rgroomonr da not hrve the effect of pmventing the griever fmm pmcessing his griawnce to vbktion bofom this Boerd. Thus, the fii pmlimiauy objo&oa of the bfiaiwy is dirmicd. 2.z - ’ h iadicated 8bovu 8 part or the mlief vhich the gzkvor mqum is rhu the 198U md 1961 perfornunca rppmisafs be m~avad from his fUe md not & used u a - ‘mwtoc@rpwsonrl8cccounts’. ThoMiniSryt&wthopo&ionth8t thogriwor . ~ has mcohd the mliaf ho has mquti. T+! facts am that Mr. bfac &rbert. a Senior Sl8URdations Coasultmtvith the Eumaa bsouras Phnning and Se&as hack of the Mlaisry ,vu usigaed rho msponsibility of attempting to resolve the griwum. Eerwiowdthofilo, tho~t~Piisb,thobn~of~thrShrb~md the fret tha8 subsequent to 19gl the griever hrd maived ho prfomco appirisrb vhich vom ‘oxcollonL* md concluded that the griovanco might po&bly be mmediod by simply mmwiag from the fl@ to tho two earlier prformu~ce appdsls. Consequently. oa March 7.19gS ho vmte 1 letter LO Mr. Melvin Ro~rrm, counal to the griooor in this matter. informing him KU the no rppkkls had been mmored from . . -. . the giiwor’s persoanel file. Mr. Cubor slso testified bdom this B0ud that U fu u the Miniswy vu concerned they vould not be mlied on for sny purpo38 in rho future. The grievor is, hmwor. sot coateatvith this. In his aideaco in chief he stated chat it vu not suffkioat that, aftat hsviag bean expowi to mlstmwn~ar md 12. . 33. humilieion for s pwiod of three years, the Minbtry should k &lo to 8wid going to ubivulon by thr simple doho of granting the aettlomoat mquostod. It ir difficult to unbound oxxtly VU mom mliof rho griever ~ta in mapoet of t&is puticuk mater. At the hearing ho baarnr very oxcimb& woa to the point of ladag the heuingfor8pwiodoftime. Itrppearsthstvhathomayv8ntis~mr rcLnml~g9rantbpthirBoud~hohu~nbrdlp~~Idr.Smithmd~rPr direction from 9 Boudvhich vould oajoin Mr. Smith from continuing to Weat him this wy in tho fWuro. Under cmst-exd~tion ho indited some ~plicism vith the suggestion that since tho porformanco appmids had been vithdmvn fmm his fUe thhry vould aot k wed in the Mum. Some indication of the @war’s continuing motivation in pumiag this griemnco cm be gleaaed from tho mbmkuioas advanced by his wunsil in ug.umon~ Them itvu suggested that the griever sooothis , , yiancou~chmom~mrppirinlyirrmn,thrtho#rthsrrpm~~u - _~. ~Io~invhichhoaa~vhrtho~~tokthrpmKptionthrrbd~thr i rppr8i+iathofimtp&o. ItvusuggssbdthaviovodinthislighLthogriawr / shouLdk~Wlodtorirhirwm~~~~mdto~hbrwtin# mkionships ‘8s aa adjunct 10 tho m8tUr of the rppmiwl griowad Vich~~~Qtrcwptthopropoaition~thirBoudankD+nrdioto a forum for the oxprmsion of frpstrrtioa owr alleged dhabiahn md hvrnmant u sn ‘adjunct’ to 8 grievance vhich hu to sll intents and purposes bean %Ued. The griwor hu 8chiom$tho objective of h8viag rho perfkmuka rppW*Tn Ima his file. Em hu &o mcoiwd 10. uaderUkiag given under oath thU tho Ministry vill aot uw&om $thr Mum. plo do no1 bdiwo thrr t&o grievor should be p&mifUd to mhso that offor of sottlomonL an offer vhich gives him pmcisoly vhst ho aoks. in order b permit him to US the Board u a forum for complaints concerning dlscrimiauion sad hsmesmenr. 14. Tom it the GUI thu the MiniWy vu rorining his c&m (0 hrw tho performance rppmiwls mmowd md VU iaW insisting oa their continued inclusion ln his file tho m8Uer m8y roll hwo boon differnat. It may voll hqo boon open to the griwor tochfingo tho boaa fid~ of the pmcw ucording to vhich h3 porform~co vu rppmisod. Hovevet, ln viov of the decision of the hfiniay to grbnt his griovsnco that it no longer-Upon to him. Vo mcogniza that this May k soon by the griovor u a ~gy on the put of the bfinby to avoid having to msvor to his ctigos bofom this Loud. Be that u it may tho Board b coastituted to hear diffomnces botveea the pwtiesvhich aaaot be settled thmugh tho griovko pmcedum. k~ this cue tho diffomnco concord the coatoat of the performaaco appdisls md their impact oa the. griovor’s futam advancement. Ho hu succoodod in hwing the porform~co appmkls mm,and ve da sot believe th+. FoWith&ng th&t ’ . suau. ho an come to this Board md wmppkia of lho process by vhich thag 8ppIWlWlSCMtOtObOlE8dO. Novewr, thorn is mothor &CL in vhich ho may be mom Iegkimately ’ concerned about the fWum impact of the performmcr appmisals aotviJ&3Unding the . . f8ct lh8t they nuy have bean vithdmvn from his pooanol file. Under cross- oxdnuion ho sUted chrt lho pwformance rppmisals ho had been giYen vould tioct his opportunities in tho futum. Vhstva undo-d him to mean by this is that had ho not mwiwd those porformaaw appmiwb bii mto of rdrtnwmont vould hwa been faster. that is. ho vould ~SW bwa pmmowd mom.quicUy. Thus. in his eyes. the performaaco rppnkuls. skhough they amy no longor 60 on his fiio. consfiwte for him 8 kind of permaaont scar vhoso offoct vill be felt thmughour his vorking life vith the Ministry. Agaia %-o are aot clear VU kindof mliof ho seeks in this mgud. Ho hu a01 uked thrt the perfornuace appraisals be chaged vhich vould be tho kind of mliof that oao might oxpoct vould utsvor his concora over the lingering damaging effects ,p, . . 15. that they have. Th8t ho h80 ukod for is th8t by k mmovd from his fiio and the Miaistry has complied vith that mquost. As for his claim that ho vould hwo bsoa promoted urlior hd ho not mcohed the p0rform0aa rpp@ of vhich ho complains, PO sh8ll d08l vith th8t matter vhon v~ consider the questiOn of his cl8in1 for 8 pmm0ti0n/mcl8&fiation. Thothirdi~mofm~fi~~Iho~wfo~b~ .pri~rtotho iarmduction 0r any nov 8pprais8ls on p~rfornuaw. the Baud’s d0cision oa tho I griownw 0r tho 1979apprrinl should b0 properly implomonud: In that ~830 th0 griovor’s p0rform8aco 8ppmiA had m&d him u ‘compOtcac’ 8ad tho Board rlloved his griownw , directed that that porform~w appmiwl be sot uido 8ad mmovod from his mc~rd md th8t them bo subsGtut~d themfor 8n 8ppmis8l shoving hb ovomll . porrorm8nw ruing u ‘outshadiag’. QwtlpthoBovd~aoju~nto~othryirvorrhLmlbr. Seubn - _. 19(6) of the Can E&oy8es W~ctiw kg8iniag AU e~pmvision for tka _ onfofcomont of wards of this Bo8rd by mgistmdon of the avafd in the Supmme C& of~.‘IhYtvh~thoyi4vormusrlofor~~~aorthr~Mhir 1979 porform8nc0 rppmis8l( vhich v~ unQnuod hu. in 8ay went, km implm8ntod by the Ministy). Thishard. in a (ZW793 has addmsud the rco~ofitrjurisdictianto~goa-jud~ntin~onm8rud. Th0B08rd.8fte mforring to rho mlwanr section of the AC& SUM tlut it could not bewtw iaVOhOd in tho onforcomonr of it3 0vn 8v8a-b by 8Mwsing rho issu0 of p0sbjudgm0nt iat4m~ some years after tho 8vard had bwn mndomd. With rospoct. vo adopt th8t approach for tho purp000 0r the matter kfom W. - - _ . Tvo maltem mauia. Fhst. the grionace domrnds the c-a of ‘inMdaaho’, ‘diirlminatory’ and ‘rwongoful’ 8uitud0s on the pul of the griuvor’s m8ayon.equOltm8cmenrviLhOulcm ~dthoUocuion 0r respondbUiesmdduties 8ppmpri8U to-the griwor’s c8p8bilitks. Uh of thO$O mutws touch oa 8 common 16. th0~.~ic,thuth0~~WO~S~~~~mh8VOC0nSp~&~~yhi, pf0gl'OOObyr combiulioa of pwformco rppmisalsvhich wt&lish a-mcord of memly ‘competent* mrk and M unvillingn& to Allah him to perform assignments vhich vill permit him to demoastmte his true ability. In doterming vhothor or not Thor griwor should be permit&d to rria these matters bofom this hard lt is ih&ibrtutt to be mminded of tho ossonw of his griw~co. it is 8 griwanco: vhich assunti&y ch&Ueages lvo p?rfornufSo appmisals and mquests thrt an & wnwrning 8 third be impbmcntsd. In our opinion th0 griwor’s allegations 0r 8 discri&natoiy waspimcy go osssnti8lly to the question 0r th~goodfaith 0rth~taspodblo r0rcoapl0tinghisp8rforman~08ppmis8b.Ititin ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0fdiscriminUoa . may be mlownt. Hemin Liw tho griwor’s problem. Ho hu ticce&d in hiring tho rpprrkrlr - - mmowd from his record wd in tig 8 mpmsont8tho of bfMagomon1 ghe an , 1 undertaking under orth that they vould not be u4 y8iast him in the Ibmm. In vkv I rid08 0r his suporion. HO caanot in our yiev wnvorL tho houiag 0r his pofr~muaco 8~~f8iSdgl'iOWlW,onVhiCh hohusuCc&ed,into 8ro~mrorthO-a0rhiS obvious frustr&oa wer vh8t ho sees (0 h~~8 boon delibemte discrimination. &in, u w obsei w. w can undo-d hov tho griwor puy wll foof fruSmted It ~ing~chboppoirPnityby~n0r(hocoaduct0rtho~ploprrin~ring him his mliof. Eovwor, this Ebard exists to msoho disputes betvwa tho ?lmployer md tho Union or omployee3 aad vhom. u hem, 8 dispute hu been msolved. tho Board no longer has my ml0 to play. I Coasaquontly vo do not think thst it is pmpor for the Board to hoar widoace or enterMa ugumonts respectfag tho gencmlized claims of discrimiaU.ioa vhich have boon sot out in-the griwaaco. h 17. . . ~o~ou~o~~PUtUr.Lhui),Lhoc~byLho~r~hok~ clusifbd or pm8totedd. Camso for tho hiiniq had r number of subdulons lo make in~ofthic~r.~~itruc~~ur~rofflct.tho~rru succouful hi obtaiaiag this mlbl u wll ia that. by bttor dated Much 7.19gS from bfr. c8fb0u to th0 gtiw0fs ~oli~it0i. th0 whuy 8ded u, in virv 0r ch0 f8dthu th0 griever had mcohod M ‘oxcoff6nt~ ratfag. in 8 janwry 19B3 porfornunw appraiuf. ha vu to be promoted from the Technician 4iPhysic81 trb ck8ifiatioa to the c~~norTechaicirnfWydalid0ITI~~~ 4.1983. Second&. couasol submitted th8t. in &ny event, tho griw8nco on its frco is not 8chusific8tiongrie~8aco andthrtthogrie7ordidnotwmplyviththoprovisioas 0r A&b 311. respecting rho inhiuion of such griovutces md that ho did not, u mquimd by $8t At+cla, rprcilp the clwaifiatioa vhkh ho skims. 141 piav of this ~’ litter ddlciency, 8ad hsving mgud to Articb S.12. vhich: limita the ‘autlxxiw of.~ the _ bard to oithor wnflrmhg Iho griewr in hbrxhing cbifien or finding that ho wuld be properly cfusifii in the job CM& rhich ~wunsol~bdttodthatthoBoardbckod jixbd&thainthomatter. ltvu sugguted by wunul that tho grbwr’? mmody ought to be to fib 8 cbuffiutioa 4 uimn-. Counal for.tho griew submitted that thorn mm&ted aa isuo u to the tim# vhon ho ought to h8vu been ro-dssifii. Thus. if tho p8rform8aw’8ppr8is8ls for 19JM md 1981 wm.to be mmoved ha his mwrd it is coacohabb tU, but for those porfornunco rppraids, the griowr pup hwo boon m-c&sifiod e8rlior th8n he vas sad it- ought a01 to bo opon t0 IhO bfi&Uy to pmVOnt8 COMidOCttiOn Of Ih8I qUOS!iOn by vithdmving the porformrnco appmids appmxinmtcly 4 yo8rs 8fler they vom originally pmp8md. fo are s8Usfled th8& the Ea8rd cti Md ought m exercise JurisdlcUon In respebr of the question-of the riming of the roddfiution., PO rocognizo thrt tho grieror hu not cut hb grbvum in the r0m of 8 cfusXic8tion griwanco. Jiowmr, rho claim ror mliof by v8y of m-cl8osiftation M be VbVod u coktk8l to the griOV8aco seeking 8 mmwal0r the porrornm~ 8ppi8ids from his fU0 md u noving out 0r rho rIct &u ho.bu boon succosfbl in h8Viag them mmovod. In viov of tho somevhu unusual circumst8aees of this aso vo think it unportant to outline 8nd d~fino Ibo isuo on vhich vo M pmp8md to assume jurisdiction. Vp do so in 8a offort to asis the griwor in uadonundiag +rly the 18. scope of the issue vhich pmporly mmains b8fom this Board. ‘The griwor. vho unquestionably fe8ls vary deeply about the WY in vhich ho hsr beea tr08&d. must undemt8nd tho limil8d jurisdiction vhich w VI pmp8md to 8ssum0. Vhila ho v8s ably mprowntod by hit counsel 8t tho h&g into the pmliminary mm. rho depth of his outrage is such th8t wunsel, through no fruit of his ovn. vu unable to keep the griwur under wnlrul. Vo are wncornod that Uho hearing intotho merits, as w have - _ dad those not be seen 8ad ond0mtood by tho griwur to mpmsnt 8n oppormnity to give oxprmion to his tmlinp concerning the mauom on vhich w. by this do&ion. hwombddbeboyundourjtuhdi&n. Wmtfollovsisoufoffor(t4cbriQtothe grbvor tho scope 0rth0 huovhich rednstobohoud. Fun.myq~nutothrboM~orilr.Snithorothn~~mof mmgomoat vho nuy hnn been InWVOd in the pm-n of rho porforama~ appraiuls. nm vithdrava. b aot in issue md the Bo8rd vill bcliao to hO8r widOnw rssprctingthu~shouMrffortsbom8&tapra0ntit. Thositaatbnisuitno perform8aco appfaisis vom wor complotad md the quagion is u to rhothor md vhoa. in those ciic~msc8acos, the griovor vould h8VO bwa eat&d to 8 m- . clusific8tioa. Secondly. PO do not by this ruling invite 8 canwas 0r wi0ut alurnatho job classiflcatioas to vhich the griwor might have become entitled. While ve 81% pmparod to W the cl8im ror m-cksific8tioa u 8 clGn ror mlior vhich flow out 0r the perform8ncc appraisll grieveace, itvould not, in our viov. be proper to dep8rt from the requirements vhich vould obt8in if tho grievwxo vem a chtssification grievmce oa its f8ce. Article S.1.1 of the collective yrreemont mquires thst the grievance specify rho clsssifiution claimed 8ad Article 3.12 limits our suthourity to either confirming the griever as properly classified in his existing clessificstion or to Tiding that he should be classified in the clessificefioa vhich he is claiming. ’ The grievance form itself does not identify 8 specific job classification vhich is claimed: Hovever. we’takt it thaf the claim now advanced is that the classification in issue is thst of Technicirn S. Physical L8b. Th8l is t&o position in vhich he ves re- clessified md his claim must aov be takoa to be thrt ho should h8VO been m-clessified in thst position earlier than Januery 4$9&3. ‘$e griwor M not wmo before this Mrd at this &ge 0r the pmcetdiags md claim 8n entitlement to 8 difromat clsssification than th8t of Technican 3 Physical &b. For enuaple. it appears from the mport of the Ombudsman filed vith this Board. that. folloviag his re-cl8ssifk8tion to Technicisn ) Physicel Lab, tho griwor claimed thst ho should have been promoted or n-classified to either a Rese8rch Engineer. 8Rese8rch Officer or 8a Engineering Officer position (See p8gd 17). Whatnr the merits of his cleims in th8t mgard they must bi advanced as 8 sep8rste griw8nce. He cannot, in this grievance. m8ko 8 genemlked cl8im to be m-clessified cad 8ttempt to fit his duties rithia 8 number of alternative potenti8l clessificetions. Thirdly, the issue before this Board does not concern the pmpriety or othervise of any alleged failure on the part of the Ministry to escign duties in a higher classificarion. We raise this issue hem since it is alleged. both in the grieV8nce end in exhibits filed vith us. that maaagement h8s not mede “proper use of my serPices~8nd valuable experience and iaiti8tive‘ and that m8negement should ellqcete “to me responsibilities appmpri8te to my veil demonstreted capebility 8ad outstsading performance and 8ccomplishmontss’ A cl~ification grievance is on! vhich seeks to 19. . domonstmU thu duties vhich are a porformod properly belong in a diffemnt clsssifiutioa. Thorn is no b&s for 8 claim that the duties of 8 diffomnt cbuific8tioa to 8a employee ia order Thor the employee’s skills md 8hilities c8n be fully utilized. Consequently. to the extent that the griovor nuy sook UI advance that kind of ckim, vo vish it to bo know LhU the Board GilI not enter&in it. no normal moaas by vhich suuch 8 Claim is 8hacod is through 8 grievsaco protestiag the decision 0r m8a8go,ment to av8rd 8 posted position ror vhich appliconu compote. Cbar~ the griwor k’frmilisr vith th8t pmcoa for ho hU applied unsuccosfu~ for 8 number OfV8C8nCisS. ThO Ombudsm8a’s Ropofl iadicstc?r thme such 8ppliC8tiOar in l%O (p. 1%. 11 does nOI appau Ch8I any Of those decisions veto grieved8tthotim8. hi conchsion.,th~ isuo to be rowhod isvhothor or aot, having mgard to the :: dutiti vhich ho 6%~ 8ctwl&performing 8t the times in question, tho griever ought to h8~8 baon m-cl8ssXii to the position ofTochaici8a I). Physicd Lab earlier t&a J8auary 4.lW3. Md, if so, vhoa ought ho to havo boon m-cl8ssifii. The R~gbtrar viu be directed co schodub this matter rot the he8ring 0r th0 bsu0 u hernia ddiid. DatedatLondon.Ontariothis 16th ~~or&%?Li%s. 20.