Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-1850.Brandt and Stevens et al.90-10-31m q BOARD COMMISSION DE SEllLEMENT RkGLEMENT DES GRIEFS 1850/86, 1373/88, 1483/88, 1484/88, 27/89, 38/89, 64/89, 251/89, 406/89, 407/89, 408/89, 1092/89 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (Brandt and Stevens et al) - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) BEFORE: N. Dissanayake I. Freedman A. Stapleton vice-chairperson Member Member FOR THE GRIEVOR T. Hadwen Counsel Cavalluzzo, Hayes & Lennon Barristers & Solicitors F'iR THE EMPLOYER HEARING: October 12, 1990 D. Francis Counsel Winkler, Pilion & Wakely Barristers & Solicitors 250/89, Grievor Employer 2 DECISION The 23 grievors filed grievances alleging that they were improperly classified as Inspector of Signs and Building Permits 2. The consolidated grievances were heard by this panel on July 21 and November 14, 1989. The Board's decision was rendered on January 5, 1990, wherein the grievances were upheld. By way of remedy, the Board issued a w order, that is, a direction that a new classification be created to reflect the grievers' job. On October 12, 1990, the Board was reconvened to deal the Union's claim that the Employer had failed to comply with the Board's direction in the decision issued on January 5, 1990. In its decision, the Board did not set any time limit for compliance with its direction. At the leering on October 12, the Union alleged that the Employer had not only failed to comply with the Board's award, but had also failed to communicate to the Union or the grievors any reason or explanation for the non-compliance. The Union urged the Board to make a direction that its initial award be complied with within 30 days of the date of the subsequent hearing on October 12. 3 The Employer, through its counsel, conceded that it had not complied with the Board's direction to create a new classification for the grievors. Counsel detailed for the Board why it had been unable to do so. It was explained that the Ministry of Transportation employs just one classification expert. This person had responsibility for dealing with the routine classification matters within the Ministry. In addition, she had to deal with the Human Resources Secretariat relating to how reclassification decisions with respect to other Ministries might impact upon the Ministry of Transportation. Counsel pointed out that in implementing a Berrv order of the Board, the Ministry cannot act alone. It has to work with the Human Resources Secretariat. That body r which has government ,wide responsibility had a staff of only four, to deal with classification matters: Counsel produced for the Board a list of 28 Berrv orders issued by the Board against various Ministries, which as of September 12, 1990, were still to be implemented by the Employer. Fourteen of these orders, unlike the one here, had time limits stipulated by the Board. Ten of the 28 outstanding Berry orders were against the Ministry of Transportation. Four of those imposed time limits for compliance. Counsel also explained in detail the process 4 that might be involved in reclassifying pursuant to a Berry order. The contention was that it was by its very nature a time consuming process. The substance of the Employer's position was that, given the very limited expertise within the Ministry and the Human Resources Secretariat, coupled with the increasing numbers of w awards being issued by the Board in recent months, the Employer was having a very difficult period in attempting to cope with the situation. It had no option but to priorize its obligations and the grievors must await their turn. Counsel assured the Board, and this assurance was echoed by the representative of the Human Resources Secretariat, that steps are being taken to remedy the situation. The Employer found its inability to expeditiously comply with the Board's orders equally unacceptable. Therefore more staff were being trained in classification skills and the classification process was being streamlined. In the meantime, the Board was urged to recognise the reality faced by the Employer. The Board appreciates the sincerity of the EMployer's plea which amounts to a statement that it was doing its best. However, the Employer acknowledges that , i 5 the best it has so far been able to do was not good enough. Eventhough the Board's initial direction did not include a specific time limit, it is implied that every direction of the Board must be complied with within a reasonable period of time. The Board's direction was made on January 5, 1990. As of October 12, 1990, the Employer has not taken even the first step towards implementing that award. That clearly.falls way outside the realm of reasonableness. While the Board in fashioning a remedy must have regard to what is a realistic period for implementation, that reality cannot be left to be determined by the Employer's own decisions relating to financial and/or staffing resources. The Board's primary mandate under the Act is to uphold the rights under the collective agreement. When the Union and its members agree to certain rights under the collective agreement they are entitled to expect that the Employer will resolve any logistic problems that may stand in the way of upholding those rights. Similarly, this Board is entitled to expect that its orders will be complied with reasonably expedience. It was with those considerations in mind that the Board orally directed the Employer to create a new 6 classification for the grievors by obtaining Civil ‘Service Commission approval no later than December 14, 1990. That direction is hereby confirmed. The Board remains seized in the event the parties encounter further difficulty relating to the implementation of this award. Dated this 31s~ day of October, 1990 at Hamilton, Ontario. Nimal V. Dissanayake vice-Chairperson l-7 A. Stapleton Member