HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-1098.Ooi.89-03-29-.: ONTARIO EMPLOYESDE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L’ONTARKJ
GRIEVANCE
q m BOARD
COMMISSION DE
SEllLEMENT RkGLEMENT
DES GRIEFS
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLXCTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between:
Before:
APPEARING FOR THE GRIEVOR:
APPEARING FOR
THE EMPLOYER:
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Min:stry of the Environment)
Grievor
Employer
7
J. Forbes-~Roberts Vice-Chalrperson
J. Anderson Member
M. C'Toole Member
Tlnothy Hadwep Counsel
Cavalluzzo, Hayes & Lennon
Barristers ad Soiicltors
The instant matter concern5 a classlflcation grievance. The
grlevor 1s employed by the Ulnlstry of the Envlronment (“the
Employer”). He lnltlally claimed that he vas improperly clas-
slfied as an Envlronmental Technlclan III, vhen ln fact he should
be accorded the status’of Environmental Technician IV.
BY vv of background, the Employer had performed a revision
of its class standards. ‘All Environmental Technicians III had
been revleved to ace if they indeed varranted the status of
Environmental Technlclan IV. As a result of thls process some
vere upgraded. Any vho failed in their initial bid vere as of
right entitled to a vre-revlevv. Based on a set scoring struc-
ture the grlevor vas unsuccesful in both attempts. A number of
other person5 vere also unsuccesful and have grievances pending
before the G.S.B..
Hearings vere held on January 10th and llth, 1999. Prior to
the lunch break on January 11th union counsel moved to vlthdrav
the grievance. Employer counsel resisted this, arguing that
because the issue had commenced lltlgatlon there must be a final
determination of the matter.
The real dispute rested in the characterization of the issue.
It vas the Union’s contention that the sole issue before this
Board vas the propriety of the grlevor’s classification. By
vlthdraving the grievance that issue vas dead.
The Employer took the posltlon that the real issue vas the validity or invalidity of the revlev and wre-revlev” process. In
other vords it vas not the grlevor’s classlflcatlon that vas at
stake, but rather the lntegrity of the whole procedure. There-
fore in light of the pending grievances of a like complaint,
absent a final determination the Employer vould be subject to
multiple jeopardy.
We agree vlth the Union’s position. Without finding that ue
could have prevented this action, we allov the grievance to be
vlthdravn. The narrov issue before this Board vas vhether or not
the grlevor vas properly an Environmental Technician III or IV.
While that inquiry -necessarily entailed an investigation of the
review and “re-revlev”~ procedure, it vould have concerned that
procedure only as .lt related to this individual griever,. BY vithdraving the grievance the Union m provided a final determi-
nation of u issue for the parties.
The grievance 1s hereby vlthdravn:
~
Oatcld at Toronto this 29rh day of March, 1989.
--
J. Forebrs-Roberts. Vicr-Chairperson
/Fd.
.l. Anderson, Mrmbcr
V.F. O'Toolr, Membrr