Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-0897.Cabeza et al.89-05-17 DecisionONTARlO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO GRIEVANCE CQMMISSION DE SE'TTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, TORONTO, ONTARIO. M5G 128 - SUITE2100 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, TORONTO, (ONTARIO) M5G 128 - BUREAU2700 Between: Before : TEL EPHONE/TÉLÉPHONE 897/87 (416) 598-0688 IN THE HATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under TEE CROWN EHPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEHENT BOARD OPSEU (Cabeza et al) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Labour) Employer P.M. Epstein - Vice-Chairperson J. Anderson - Member E. Orsini - Member APPEARING FOR R.R. Wells THE GRIEVOR: Counsel Gowling & Henderson Barristers C Solicitors APPEARING FOR F. Fitzpatrick THE EHPLOYER: Counsel Hicks, Morley, Hamilton, Stewart, Storie Barristers & Solicitors C HEARING: December 9, 1988 Subsequent to the issuing of the Reasons in this matter, Counsel for Cabeza advised in writing that he wished to make further submission with respect to the retroactivity date for the Grievor, Cabeza. The Employer was given an opportunity to respond to those submissions and decided to make no further submissions. For the reasons given in the original decision, the Board found that April 15, 1986, would be a reasonable re-classification date for the Grievor, Mr. Milosavljevic, It now appears, from Exhibit "8" filed at the hearing, that Mr. Cabeza falls into the same category as the Grievor, Mr. Milosavljevic. The Board, at first instance, was not aware of that fact because the Board did not have before it the Cabeza memorandum that apparently was similar to the memorandum written by Mr. Milosavl jevic, dated March 7, 1986. It appears clear that there was in fact a similar memo written by Cabeza delivered on that same date and accordingly, for those reasons, we believe that April 15, 1986, is also a reasonable re-classification date for the Grievor, Cabeza, In this unusual situation, the Board wishes to make it clear that it did not consider itself "functus" since the Board retained jurisdiction to deal with matters arising out of its reasons originally delivered and accordingly, the Board considers that it has jurisdiction to amend its previous reasons in accordance with the Supplementary Reasons. DATED AT TORONTO, ONTARIO this 17th day of May, . P.M. Epstein, Vice-Chairperson E. Orsini, Member