Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-1326.Union.88-11-16ri ONTARIO EMPLOYESDEL/I CO”RONNE CROWNEMPLOYEES OE“ONTARI0 GRIEVANCE CQMMISSION DE SElTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 0”NOAS STREET WEST. TORONTO. ONTARIO. M5G IIS - S”,TEE?IW 1s0, RUE DUNLMS OUEST. TORONTO, (ONTARlOj M50 I,?8 - B”&EA”PIW Between : OPSEU (Union Grievance) TELEPHONE/TE‘&WONE ,418,5W-0688 1326/81 IN THE MATTER OF AR ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Management Board of Cabinet) Smployer Before: B.B. Fisher Vice-Chalrperson I. Freedman Member p.D. Camp I Member For the Grievor: 8. Herllch Counsel Cavalluzzo, Hayes 6 Lennon BArristera and Solicitors For the EnDlover: A. Burke Counsel Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie Barristers & SolicitorS Rear inas: February 12, 198A September 26. 1988 INTERIM DECISION This case involves the question of whether or not probationary employees are covered by the job security provisions in Article 24 of the current Collective Agreement. The Union took the position that the words are clear and unambiguous on their face and was prepared to argue the merits of the case without the introduction of any evidence, however, the employer took the initial position that the words were also clear and unambiguous on their face but as an alternative argument pleaded that the words may well be unclear and ambiguous and therefore, sought leave to introduce extrinsic evidence as to the negotiating history and past practice. The Board asked the parties to make their argument as to whether~or not the words were clear and unambiguous before deciding on whether or not to introduce extrinsic evidence and after listening to the legal arguments of both parties, the Board is satisfied that the use ofthe word “seniority” in the context of Article 24 is unclear and ambiguous and therefore, extrinsic evidence would be permitted in this case with respect to negotiating history, past practice with respect to this particular section and past and current practice with respect to other articles of the Collective Agreement in which same or similar words are utilized. The Union will present its extrinsic evidence first and then management may call whatever extrinsic evidence it feels necessary. There was considerable argument and discussion at the hearing with respect to the propriety of the Union presenting reply evidence on the issue of past practice, however, the Board decided that they were unable to provide any ruling in advance of the Union indicating what evidence, if any, it actually does want to present in reply. -2- The Registrar has directed to arrange for two additional days of hearing on this matter. , this 16 day of November , 1988. ,.”