HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-2086.Union.88-12-05EMPLOYESOELA CO”RONNE CJEL’ONTARIO CD~M,SS,bN DE
SETTLEMENT RkGLEMENT
DES GRIEFS
Between:
IN mu3 rtmm~ 0F AN ARBITRATION
Under
THB CROWN EMPII)YEZS COLLBCTIVB BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEUENT BOARD
OPSEU (Union Grievance)
-and-
The Crown in the Right of Ontario (Management Board of Cabinet)
P. Draper J. McManus
W. Lobraico
Grievor
Employer
Vice-Chairperson Member Member
For the Grievor: C. Paliare Counsel Gowling and Henderson Barristers and Solicitors
For L. M. McIntosh Counsel Crown Law Office, Civil Ministry of the Attorney General
Hearinq:
August 12, 1987 April 20, 1988
Interim Decision
This is a policy grievance in which the Union grieves that the
assignment of certain persons recruited by the Employer under
the Ontario Public Service Internship Program to perform
bargaining unit work contravenes the Collective Agreement.
Counsel to the Employer raises the issue of the status of those
persons, submitting that they are not employees as defined in
the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act (the Act).
Specifically, it is argued that they are excluded by Section
l(1) (f) of the Act, the relevant part of which reads:
(f) 'qemployee" means a Crown employee as
defined in the
Public Service Act but does not
include,...
(vii) a person engaged...for a
project of a non-recurring
kind....
It is the practice of the Board to defer to the jurisdiction of
the Ontario Public Service Labour Relations Tribunal (the
Tribunal) conferred by Section 40(l) of the Act which reads:
2
40(l) If, in the course of bargaining for
a Collective Agreement or during the
period of operation of a Collective
Agreement, a question arises as to
whether a person is an employee, the
question may be referred to the Tribunal
and its decision thereon is final and
binding for all purposes.
Lasani. 147/04 and OPSEU (Union Grievance), 1257/86 are in
point.
Accordingly, the issue must be referred by the parties for
determination by the Tribunal under Section 40(l) of the Act.
We reserve jurisdiction of the matter pending the outcome of
such reference.
Dated at Consecon, Ontario, this 5th day ofDecember,
p. Draper - Vice-Chairperson
"I dissent" (Dissent attached)
J. McManus - Member
2086/86
DISSENT
The evidence is that the Employer assigned certain persons to positions
in the bargaining unit which would otherwise have been occupied by
bargaining unit members but refused to consider them as members of the
unit. In my opinion the Board's task is simply to decide whether or not,
as the union claims, the Employer thereby violated the rights of
bargaining unit members and impaired the integrity of the bargaining
unit.
J. F:cManus