HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-0467.Bouchard.84-04-11IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLGYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between: OPSEU (Michael Bouchard)
Griever
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of the Environment)
Employer
Before:
For the Grievor:
For the Employer:
Hearing: February 27, 1984
R; J. Roberts Vice Chairman
J. Best Member
A. Reistetter Member
N. Luczay
Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union
G. S. Feeley
Manager, Personnel Operations
Human Resources and Personnel
Development Branch
Ministry of the Environment
INTERIM DECISION
At the outset qf the heari‘jy, the Union indicated that
the grievor wished to amend the settlement requested in
his grievance. Originally, the yrievor -- who was grieving
that he was improperly classified as an Environmental
Technician 3 -- claimed the classification of Environmental
Technician 4. By virtue of the amendment, this claimwouldhave
been.replacedby one directed toward an entirely different
classification in a different class series, the classifica-
tion of Systems Officer 2.
The Employer objected to the amendment. Both parties
thereupon.requested that the Board decide the issue before
proceeding to hear evidence on the merits of the case.
We granted this request, and after oral argument we went
into Executive Session to consider the.matter.
Upon a review of the submissions of the parties, it was
the unanimous conclusion of the Board that the amendment
should not be allowed. To do so would be to effect a
material change in the substance of thegrievance, a~changewhich
never had been dealt with by the parties at any stage of
the formal grievance procedure. It was undisputed that
the classification of Systems Officer 2 was in a completely
-.
.-- -.
.c
different class series and different category from the
classification of Enviromental Technician 4. The two
classifications were not even related in terms of
salary negotiations.
There was no precedent to support allowing such a
drastic amendment to a classification grievance. In fact,
the authorities cited by the parties supported reaching
the opposite conclusion. In Re Dashfield and Ministry of
Community and Social Services, G.S.B. #333/80 (Delisle),
the Board rejected a similar attempt to amend a grievance
to claim a classification in a different class series.
See &$, at 2. In Re Price and Ministry of Community and -
Social Services, G.S.B. #25/81 (Verity), the Board stated,
in pertinent part, "In our view, it would be improper to
allow an amendment requesting an entirely different classifica-
tion series from that set out in the grievance form." Id. -
at 6.
The request for amendment is denied. This leaves the
grievance in its original form, i.e., as one claiming the
classification of Enviromental Technician 4. We will
retain jurisdiction of the merits of this grievance. The
Unionwill be given a reasonable time within which to
inform this Board whether it intends to proceed in the
matter.
DATED AT London, Ontario this 11th day of April ,
1984. _
J. Best, Member
A. wistetter, Yember