HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-0895.Tse.89-02-07 <. · ON TA R~O EMPL O YES DE LA C OURONN£
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ON rA RIo
GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSlON DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, TORONTO. ONTARIO. MSG 1Z8 - SUITE2100 .TELEPHONE/TELePHONE
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, TORONTO, (ONTARIO) MSG 1Z8-BUREAU2100 f416) 595-0688
0895/88
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between:
OPSEU (Dominic Tse)
Grievor
and
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Correctional Services)
Employer
Before: J,W. Samuels Vice-Chairperson J. McHanus Member
D. Montrose Member
For the Grievor: K. Hughes
Counsel
Cavalluzzo, Hayes & Lennon
Barristers and Solicitors
For the Employer: 14. Galloway
Staff Relations Officer
Ministry of Correctional Services
Hearing: January 19, 1989
DECISION
The grievor applied for the position of Director of Assessment and
Treatment Units. This is a management position outside the bargaining
unit. He was unsuccessful. He filed two grievances.
Firstly, he claims that the Ministry violated Article 4 of the
Collective Agreement.
Secondly, he claims that the Ministry violated the Preamble and
Article 27 of the Collective Agreement, and discriminated against him by
denying his fight to appeal the decision of the interviewing board.
At the outset of our hearing, the Ministry raised a preliminary
objection, arguing that these matters were not arbitrable before this Board.
We agree with the Ministry for the following reasons.
This Board does not have any general jurisdiction to deal with all
"concerns" raised by employees. Our authority comes from sections 18(2)
and 19 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. Pursuant to
the former, employees may grieve to this Board concerning improper
classification, improper appraisal, and discipline without just cause.
Pursuant to the latter, we hear and determine grievances concerning the
interpretation, application, administration or alleged contravention of the
Collective Agreement between the parties. This point was made clearly in
Haladay, 94/78 (Swan), at pages 34.
In this case, the grievor suggests that he has certain rights under the
Collective Agreement and that they have been violated. But there is
nothing in the Collective Agreement concerning the rights of a bargaining
unit employee when the employee applies for a management pgsition.
Article 4 of the Agreement sets out certain fights which arise when
management posts and fills vacancies .or new positions. But Article 4.1
makes it clear ~xpressly that these provisions apply only to vacancies "in
the bargaining unit" or new positions "in the bargaining unit". And this
Board has said repeatedly that the Agreement means precisely what it
3
says--Article 4 does not apply to vacancies in management or new
positions in management {Cunningham, 279/79 (Jolliffe), at pages 9-10;
Lansey, 419/82 (Weatheritl), at pages 4-6; and Jones, 1525/87 (Fraser), at
pages 5-6}/ Thus, under the Collective Agreement, the grievor has no
substantive rights with respect to this job competition, and therefore no
right to grieve.
Furthermore, if the grievor has no substantive rights, he has no
consequent rights to appeal management's denial of his grievance or to any
other remedy under the Collective Agreement.
For these reasons, the grievances are dismissed.
Done at London, Ontario, this 7th day of February , 1989.
J'.--W~amuels, Vice-Chairperson
J. McManus, Member
D. Montrose, Member