Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-0317.Glenny.83-10-17IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: Before: R. J. Roberts P. Craven P. H. Coupey 'For the Grievor: S. Laycock Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union For the Employer: L. McIntosh Counsel Hearing: OPSEU (James Glenny) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Government Services) Employer Vice Chairman Member Member Crown Law Office Civil Ministry of the Attorney General September 27, 1983 * -2- INTERIM AWARD At the outset of the hearing in this matter the Employer objected to the jurisdiction of the Board. Both parties agreed that'the objection to jurisdiction should be dealt with prior to taking any evidence relating to the substantive case. For reasons which follow, the objection to jurisdiction is sustained. We do not have jurisdiction to entertain the merits of this case. For purposes of providing the Board with some background to the case, counsel for the Employer and the representative for the Union made certain factual statements which were not intended to be taken as stipulations Of fact that might bind them in any hearing on the merits of the case. It seems from these state- ments that the dispute between the parties focused upon an apparent refusal by the Legal Branch of the . Ministry of Government Services to consent to an agree- ment with a local Union regarding compressed work week arrangements. The President of the relevant Union Local, Local 508, grieved "ItJhat Mr, R. Stupart, Director Legal c= , I -3- Branch, . . . will not comply with the intent of Article 7.6 of the collective agreement Iwhich addresses the matter of compressed work weeks], in that he will not modify the hours of work as provided for under the said Article 7.6." Article 7.6 of the collective agreement reads as follows: 7.6 It is understood that other arrangements regarding hours of work and overtime may be entered into between the parties on a local or ministry level with respect to variable work days or variable work weeks. The Model agreement with respect to compressed work week arrangements is attached as Appendix 4. , The Union,essentially contended that under this provision_ management was obligated to exercise a discretion to enter into compressed work week arrangements with the Union, and that any dispute between the parties regarding the manner of exercise of that discretion was arbitrable. It seems to us that this contentiqnmight have been well founded if the Union's characterization of the nature of Article 7.6 were appropriate; however, it seems to us that Article 7.6, when fairly construed, falls far short of obligating management toexercise anydiscretion. Article 7.6 seems to provide no more than a consensual framework to enable individual locals and Ministries - 4 - mutually to agreetoinstitute compressed work week arrangements. Article 7.6 does not compel an unwilling party to enter into negotiations regarding the establishment of compressed work weeks. Both parties have to be willing to take advantage of the option that Article 7.6 makes available. It follows from the foregoing characterization of Article 7.6, which we believe is the proper one, that it is not within the jurisdiction of this Board to review a complaint of the type which was submitted in the grievance at hand. As already indicated, the complaint essentially was that the Director of the Legal Branch of the Ministry refused to enter into an agreement, or perhaps to negotiate an agreement, with the local Union regarding compressed work weeks. In neither case might there have been any violation by the Employer of any obligation under Article 7.6. The Article merely provides an option. It .does not obligate either party to negotiate, let alone reach final agreement. Where there is no mutuality, in the sense of a desire on the part of both parties to agree with respect to compressed work weeks, Article 7.06 of the collective agreement does not come into play. The objection to jurisdiction is sustained. We do not have jurisdiction of the subject matter of the grievance. I . . - 5 - DATED AT London, Ontario this 17th day of October, 1983. P. Craven, Member P. Coupey, Member u 2: 1200 - I