HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-0311.Union.99-11-22 -' C~ E~OYEES DZ L'ON~A~O
'" ~RI~ANCE COMMISSION
$~LEMENT REGIMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
Itt THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION ~-' ' ', '.
TI'IIi CROMi EI~PLO¥££S COLLECTIVE BAR~INING ACT ' "'-::
.- THE GRIEVANCE: S[TTLi~.NT BOARD -- ' ..... -.- ,.: '
-' ~nd . '"
... -- .... . -._..~ ....... [mpl oyer
.- Before: Y/. ¥. I~a~ters vice-Ch'at,person.
F. Tayt or Member .'
D. Nallace Ne~er
the Gr~evor: A. Rgdet :ounse]
', Gowl~ng & Henderson ~
B~t~s:ers and Solicitors
For the Employer: J,F' Benedict
Manager Staff Relations & Compensation
Minis:fy of Correc/iona! Services
Hearing: SeptemDer 20,.1988
30, 1988i the mater.iai pert of vhich'.reads es follovs:
~.r..... Articles ~ and ~8 of the collective 8~reemen~, ...
no~'exc~usively.~ These v~o~e~ions arise, es a res~I_~.o~,
bu~ are no~ iiui~ed ~o,'~he enploye~s failure co
~he' Sau~' S~. Ne~ie ja~I vlch. the appropr~'ete ~reined/
classified CorrecC~onal Off,cars.
~ETTLEMENT DESIRED:
. ~,~.
The= '~he ~0ard order· ch· enplo~er =o dec'~are- cbst'~he,.
~ acclons as des'cribed.above ate contrary, t'o the ~':' '
..... '~ pr'ovioions'-'.of~the collective_agreement." Fur~h~,,~_~ac
, Ch· eup~oyer~,be ordered.,Co sCaf~ .Ch· Seu!c Sce.'Harte. _.
..~ ~ . . As ie epperen~ from the above I-enSueS·, this dispute . ..
........... facility, Vhlch is_.compr!sed~._9~_~e units, has a staff of s~xCy
c~assified service. The renalnins twenty five were appointed to
the unclassified service. The ~e~ operates on a three
~ respec~ o~ ~he rs~o be~veen classified and u~classif~ed
I~ ~ould seem, hoverer, ~ha~ '~here Es ~ene.rally a ~[x of ~hese
~o categories of employees on any ~[ven
The compleinc o! the union focuses on ~he.r. atio of
there are ~n ~n~f~c~ent ~u~ber o~ c~a~f~e6 ~ff Co ~eeC. the
u~on, some cea to s~x~een ldd~c[onal classified employees are
required ~or ~his purpose. I~ chis re&ard, ~he ~nion submitted
.... that ma.nagemen~ at ~he Sault
"excessively" on u~class~F~ed s~a~f, especially ~ the .period
~. subsequent =o Nay, [986, ~ Indeed, the thrust of ~ts pos~t%.~n was
;: '~ ~hat* 8uc~ a~a'f~ had beeu'u~ilized ~o fill vhat should be
· "*~" Per~aneu~ position's in the classified service The ua~on'(~'~'argued
~.- ..... ;.that this practice vlo~ated ~he collec~ve, agreement La tvO,
.......... respects, ~irstly, eS the
'}..'"" ."per~anen~'. ~_. ~at~re, they should-be
.. ~he~excees{ve Use ~f-~nclass~f~ed
: health and safety concern ~tbLn the
~ece~e ~Be sa~e level of training a's ~d the Correctional
O[ficets eho ~ere part of =he class[f~ed service. Further, the
Boar~ vas adv[se'd ~ha~ suc~ personnel
~he functions ~h~ they could per~orm.-
Correc~[Onal Officers at :he facility in quest{on ~erved to
expose all s~aff to an unreasonable r{sk of har~.
-2-
At the outoet o~ t~e hear~$, ~nd be£ore any evidence
p~eeented, the employer ra~se~ a preliminary object,on to
arb£trability of the grievance,. It was in~t~ally-~ubmitted that
the vording of the srievance, was "abstract" And lack~n~ in
particulars, Zt vas further argued that the statement of
part['culars provided -£o the employer.by letter dated
l&, 1988 (Exhibit '~') d~ no~ advance ~he vn£on's.case in that
':: [~t d'emo~strate~ that the ~rievance wa~ ~n'.substance directed
: '-~ ~uarbitrab2e matters ~elat[uS to appo£nt~ent,
: ·~[L" orgauizat~ou and assisument Speci[[c~lly, ~t.vas ~ub~Ltted chat
[. ' '~.,. the area of sta£fin~ and, more partic~larlF the Us~0f
£~unclaasiIied personnel' mt ~he ~facility, .~as .au exclusi~e' , .
~ ." .menatemen[ right huder Sectloh 18 of The 'Crovn Employees
and vaa-~here~o~e not. vi£hin.t.h.e_.juri~iction of· ~his Boar~,
: appoiut~eata ~o the uncltssified service made pursuan~ to Section
8 o£ The ?ubllc ·Service ~ct, R.$J0. 108'0, Chapter &IS, as amended.
The employer lastly su2$t~ted ~aC ~he ~r£evance did no~ r'aise
leSitimate health and safe~y concerns. Rather, ye vere urged ~o
~ind that the inclusio~ of such ma~ters in t~e ~rieva~ce vas done
simply ~o persuade ~his Board to assuae ~uri~d£c~ion vhich ic did
not othervise possess. The follovi~ authorities ~ere relle~
" in support oF the employer's posi:-ion:
- Re Nalsday and The N~nlstry of Indystry & Tour{sm~ 96/78;
- Aub£~ and ?he N[niscr~. of Correcciona! Services,
- Cripps and The ~inistry of Correctional Services, 6'60/86;
- Bond a~d The Niniitry of Natural Resources, 173/78;
- Johnson and S~pskovski and The Hinistr~ of Culture and
Recreation, 72/76;
- Skate,ky and The M~nis~ry of Natural ~esources, ~29/B1;
- ~ousseau and The N~nis~rF'of Corre.c~ional Services, 1182/$$;..
- ~arden ~ Th~ ~n[s~r~ of 2o~r~c~[o~l S~rvice~,
............. I'n response, the union argued ~ha~ ch·is Board ·did possess
..- -~.~. ...... .~ .~ ....
~he unclass~[fed servi~e' %n ~hLa ~esard ~ re%led n~"~e'~' ]- [ '
:-'" avards ~ssued ~n Beresford end The Mini,cra'of
........... 197~/87. Zn bo~h instances, the Board concluded ~hat ~c could
reviev an appointment purportedly made pursuant Co Section 8 o~
The PubI[c Service AcC, As pa~ of their inqu~r~, the Board
position ~h[ch £e~ ~Chln one si ~he ~hree groups coupris~n8 ~he
unclass£fled service as co~ta'ined in Section 6 of ~e~ulat~on 881
enacted .pursuafl~ ~o Th~ Pub~[c Service Ac~. I~ ~as also
submitted :ha: [he differential :rea:men~ accorded to
unclassified employees could constitu:e a breach of Section' 15(1.)
-6-
of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedo=s. if such e~pioyeea
vete not in fact temporary and per[ormed in the same [ashion aa
'*permanents". Laatly~ the union den[ed the ausgestio'n o~ the
· employer that the health and safety issue had been advanced
merely to. persuade the Board to aas~ne ~urisdlction. 'To the
eontrary~ tt asserted a teal health and safety coecern and
· "~; ....'~eques'ted an'opportunity to prese~t'e~iaence in respect o~ same.
:- By ray o~ reply~ the employer submitted ~hat the avards
'~ Beresfor~ and ~£11e~ ~ere incorrectly ~ecide$ ana..shouta not be
~ -'. 0'llove~, ~e vets in,or,ed that the- for~er avard vas subjec~ to
.:~.'~..an applicat£on for ~udicial revlev. The represen-~-~{~'f~-~--th~ -~'
~ ·':" eePloyer furth&r indicated ~h~'theae cases~did no~cbn~i~e~-'~he .~, . .....
~ef~ect o~ Section 30(3') o~ The ~ubllc S~rvice Act, This sect[on
"~ ~::,'. serves' t,o readoUt"the coIiecti'~">agreemeut pazamount-in lays' ' ..... --~..--. _,~. _
cofl£1icl vlth-a, provls~oa in the regulagi0n, l~ Vas the ~OSLtiO~
O~~ the employer that'Sectioh--~;~e~G~atioe. 881..ives ...... ..
irreconcilable vith Article 3 o~ the collective agreement ~nd vas
for ~hat reason inapplicable.. Fergu,on a~g The Ministry of
Industry and To. urism, 3~/76 was relied on in suppor: of this
argument. It ~as lastly submitted ~ha~ ~he ~harter did not.apply
in this instauce as the e~ployees in the classified and
unclassified serv£cea ,could not be considered as being "similarly
situated"
After consideri'n$ all of the sub~iseiOns and authorities
presented to-us, the Board finds that we do have the jur'iediction
to proceed vlth a hearing in chis instance. The parties have
directed their attention to health and safety matters tn Article
18. Article 18(1) reade as ~ollovs:'
"The Employer shall continue to make reasonable
provisions for the safety an& heaIth of its employees
during the hours o£ their empl'oyme~t. It is e~reed
that both the ~ployer and the Union shall co-operate
co the fullest extent posaibl'e ~n the prevention o~
accidents and in the reasonable promotion of safety
and health of all employees," ,
ge have not' been persuaded that this article of tbs collective
agreement is entirely inappllcable-to:'the~present
'threaten the ~ealth ant safet~ 0i e~pt°yees a: the' Saute'
........ "Katie 'jail~.- ~e--cherelore think..it_..proper, to hear..e_~idence
[re?pact' of the .allegation iu order co ~ecermine i[ there is aerie
answered ~i:hou: t~e presentation and consideration of relevant
evidence. The fac: that sca[fing and compleaent may be part
managemen~ tights under Section 18 of The Crovn Employees
Collective Bar,again8 Act is no: a bar :o :he assessment o~ the
health and safety complaint. In :his respect, ye concur vi:h the
!ollo~ing comment oi the Soard in Warden:
"T~ the ~hrust o[ a grievance ~s a health and
safer7 ~asue under Article 18.I, ~hen in our
respectful vier that grievance ia arbitrable
despite the fact chat the resolution of that
to the employer's exercise Of managemen~ t.~ghts."
(~age 3). ·
~n that: case, .the Board deck'ned to hear the grievance because
the vordLng of same vas ~ot indicat£ve of a health and safety
issue~ Further~ :he heettt~ and safety concern vas not raised by
the gr~evor until the arbitration heating; That a~tuation
:. '~ health a~d safety provision'of ~he collective agreement 'vas ..
"~;" :" apecL~LcalZy re~&'tted to t~ the~body o~ the $t~evauce,
~ ~"~' eeeta~ nature o~ the compLa'~ut vas aesct{bed pt~,'to the . · .'
~. · hearing through the p~rt'tculate provided to-the employe~.~
m ............. ~or all Of'the above reasons, the Board conclades that
......... ~ay properly proceed to 'hear'evidence-and argument on~the_hea_lt~
.and snEeZy complaint. ~e are inclined co reserve our opinion
the arguments raised by the employer to the effect Chac questions
of steeling, complenent ant appointment ~all vithin che exclusive
dc~ain nE management' rights. :~e have deter~ne~ above the: these
es:cars do not depr~ve us of ~uristiction to learn more about the
alleged health and safety concern;. ~urther, ye hold the opinion
ChaC they bear directly on the q~es~ion as to vha:
approptLate, a~ tega~.., remedy sho~ld ye ulti~a'elv. . find mer:t to
the union's complaint. Xhe Board ~;~ll teed to entertain furcker
presentation o! the evidence. Additionally, i~ .vOUld be
improdent ~o add ~o [he debate over the Bo4rd)8 ao~hori~y co
reviev appo~n~me~C8 to che unclassified serv~ce.~hile the
~e pre~e~tly before the ~v~o~al Court. Ve chece'~ore ch£nk iC
~s advisable co del~y the Ceschedul~ng o~ the hearing un~
~he cour~ has-g~ve~ ~s'dec~s~cn,
DATED at, W~nd'sor, On:ar~o', :h~s 22,.d day of November, 1988.
.......... H, V. ~attets,-v{Ce,Chair~eeson
O. ~allace~ ~e~ber ~ '
-8-