Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-2372.Nickoluk.88-07-05EMPLOYtS DE‘4 COURONNE DE “ONTAWO CPMMISSION DE REGLEMENT DES GRIEFS 2372/87 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under .~. THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD OPSEU (Sylvia Nlckoluk) - and - Grievor The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community and Social Services) Rmployer D.H. Kate6 I. Freedman A. Stapleton Vice-Chairperson Member Member Before: For the Grievor: N. Coughlan Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union For the EmDlOYer: Hearinas : S. Patterson Solicitor Legal Services Branch Ministry of Community and Social May 20, 1988 This grievnrrce is about a job posting complaint where it is alleged Lhat the employer went outside "thee area of search" (Thunder Bay), tu appoint a Civil Servant from Woodstock, Ontario, to the position. By deviating from the posting requ~i~remerlt iu awnrcl.ing the intervener, Ms. Peacock-George, ~the posi.l;i<)ll the eulpl.oyer j.s alleged to have deprived the grievor of H promol~iurr and has acco,rdingly violated her entitlements under Article 4 of the collective agreement. Tha intervenw WBS given notice of Lhese proceedings and eleo ted not to appear. The facts precipitating this dispute were reduced to an agreed StatemenL uf facL. That document. reads as follows: BETWREN: IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER THE .CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE'BARGAINING ACT BEFORE THR GRIEVANCE SETTLEMKNT ROARD SYLVIA NICKOLUK - and - Grievor THE CROWN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO (MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES) Employer AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. Curpetition No. NW0 31/8'7 was held by the Minis.try of Cornmunj~ty and Soci.al Services closing August 20, 1987. This competition was for a Community Services Team Programmer, Counsellor 3 - Resjdential Life, to be employed at the Nor~thwestern Regional Centre located in Thunder Bay, Ontario. A copy of the job posting in ,this matLer has been attached as Exhibi~L 1 to this agreed statement of [acts. 2. The? area of se+rch in this compet~iliorr was "restricted to civil servanLs in Lhe City of Thunder Bay". 3. A successful candidate in this mdter was Ms. Debbie Peacock-Ceqrge. She was placed in this position effective October 5, 1987. 4. Ms. Peacock-George was at the time of this competition a civil servant, bej.ng employed by the Ministry of Communi.ty and Social Services, on leave of absence from the Oxford Regional Centre pursuan.t to Article 29.1 of the Collective Agreement be~tween Management Board of Cabinet and the Ontario Public Service Employees' Union. 5. MR. Peacock-George was at the time of this competition resident in the City of Thunder Bay living at 215 South Rockwood, Thunder I&y, Orrtario. Ms. Peacock-George took up residence at this address on June 28, 1987. 8. The issue berore the Grievance Set~tlement Board in this matter .is the interpretation of the ,term "restricted to civil servnr~ts in the City of Thunder Bay". 7. If the successful candidate is properly within the area of search, i.t. is agreed that this grievance will fail. 8. Ir the successful candid&e is not properly within the area or search that the competition will be rerun on the following terms: (a) The incumbent, Ms. Peacock-George, will be excluded from the rerun compe~tition. (b) The competition will be restricted to those candidates in the original competition number NW0 31/87. The fol.lowing facts are hereby agreed to by the undersigned on this 20t.h day of May 1988. "Nancy Coughlan" for OPSEU "Sylvia Nickoluk" In addition to the agreed statemenL Lhe Board was advised that the in.tervener's husband had been transferred to Thunder Bay by his employer, the Worker's Compensation Board. The intervener accompawj.ed her husband to Thunder Bay and was grnrlted an extended leave of absence From the position she held nL Lhc: Oxford Regional Centre, Woodstock, Ontario. On June 28, 1987, i'ls. Peacock-George and her spouse "took up residence"~in -3- Thunder Bay. The job posting for the Community Services Team Programmer Counsellor 3 position was dated August 8, 1987. That document clearly restricts "the area of search" to Civil Servants in the City of Thunder Bay. The clear question raised in issue in this grievance is whether Ms. Peacock-George qualifies as "a Civil Servant in the City of Thunder Ray". We have no doubt that she does. There was no question that the grievor was a Civil Servant. Moreover, the agreed statement established that she was a resident of Thunder Bay, Ontario, as of June 28, 1987. Accordingly, since the job posting is dated August 8, 1987, we are satisfied that at all material times the intervener satisfied .the eligibility requirement tha,t she hold the status of "a Civil Servant in the City of Thunder Bay". The trade union appeared to argue that the deletion of the words "resident of" or "living in" Thunder Bay from the job requirement restricting the area of search somehow made any Civil Servant who happened to be in Thunder Bay at the time of the posting an eligible candidate. In other words any civil servant, namely the intervener, who happened to be in Thunder Bay at the time of the posting (and who otherwise held the status of a Civil Servant elsewhere) could be deemed eligible ~for ~the position. In that manner, it was argued that the Civil Servants who actually "resided" in Thunder Bay would be deprived of their entitlements to a promotion under Article 4 of the collective agreement. -4- There is not merit to the argument. It is quite clear to us that "the area of search" in being restricted to "Civil Servants in .the City of Thunder Bay" is intended to mean Civil Servants "living in" or "residing in" Thunder Bay. It does not mean Civil Servants who happened to be in Thunder Bay at the time of the posting. Moreover, we are further satisifed that Ms. Peacock-George did not happen to be in Thunder Bay at the time of the instant job posting. She clearly resided in Thunder Bay and therefore was an eligible and obviously qualified applicant for the position. In dealing with the trade union's argument with respect to The Public Service Act we can neither appreciate nor understand any relevance of that statute to the issue in dispute. For all the foregoing reasons the grievance is without merit and must be dismissed. Dated this 5th day ofJuly,1988. I. Freedman - Member A. Stapleton - Member