Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-0082.Carneiro.89-09-06 ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COUFIONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST~ TORONTO, ONTARIO, MSG IZ8- SUITE2100 TELEPHONE/T~'L~PHONE 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, TORONTO, (ONTARIO) MSG 1Z8 - BUREAU2100 (416) 598-0688 82/89 IN TBE HATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before TBE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: OPSEU (Carneiro) Grievor - and - The crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Government Services) Employer Before: G.J. Brandt Vice-Chairperson I. Thomson Member D. Clark Member For the Grievor: C. wilkey Counsel Cornish & Associates Barristers & Solicitors For the Employer: N. Eber Counsel Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart and Storie Barristers & Solicitors Bearing: July 24, 1989 Rulin~ on Adjournment This is a classification grievance in which the grievor, a Contract Technician, currently classified as a Designer 1, seeks reclassification either as a Specification Officer 2 or an Estimator Quantity Surveyor 2. At the hearing the Employer requested an adjournment which request was opposed by the Union. The background to the request for the adjournment is as follows. The grievance, which was filed on January lO, 1989, is one of 6 separate grievances each of which claim a re- classification from Designer 1 to Specification Officer 2. Two of the other grievances (Hartung, Wolf) were filed shortly after the instant grievance. It is not known when the other grievances were filed. In response to these grievances the employer decided to conduct a broad review of 25 positions in the Designer 1 classification. It is currently in the process of retaining a consultant to conduct the review and it is anticipated that the review will be completed in approximately two and one half months. The review will consists of position audits of a representative number of positions throughout the property management division of the Ministry and subsequently an evaluation of the audited posttiohs against the class standards 3 will be conducted with a view to determining the appropriate classification of the positions. Considering that the position audit and re-evaluation may have the result of giving the grievor the relief which he seeks the employer proposed that the matter by adjourned on the understanding that, in the event that the review and re- evaluation does not produce a result which is satisfactory to the grievor this grievance could be brought back to the Board for hearing and resolution. The issue before the board was dealt with recently in Nartung/Wolf (59/89) where the employer advanced the same position with respect to the grievances of 2 of the 6 grievances that have been file~ respecting the Designer 1 classification. In that case the parties consented to an adjournment on certain conditions, viz, i) that the review include among the representative positions to be audited the position held by the' grievors, ii) that the Ministry agree to provide to the Union, by October 20, 1989, those parts of the consultant's report that audit the subject positions and make recommendations with respect to classification; and iii) that the Ministry undertake to make known its decision whether or not to reclassify the grievors by October 20, 1989'. On the basis of those undertakings the Board ordered that the matter be adjourned to a date no earlier than November 1, 1989 before any panel of the Board. 4 In the instant matter the Employer proposes that the Board adjourn this case on the same conditions as were set down in ~artuBg/~o~fe. While the adjournment in ~artung/Wolfe was on consent the Union in this case opposes the request. Consequently, it is necessary for the Board to rule on the request It was noted by the Union that the grievor first grieved his classification in January of 1987 and that at that time he.was convinced by management to withdraw his grievance pending the outcome of a reorganization in his department. He co-operated with that request and withdrew his grievance. Following the re- organization- in April 1987 he had some further discussions with representatives of management concerning his classification. However, his concerns were not adequately addressed. When he filed the grievance which is currently before the Board he was again told, at the second stage reply on March 22, 1989 that "a further review of his position would be undertaken shortly". Having regard to his experience following the filing of his earlier grievance the grievor was not disposed to have the hearing of his current grievance adjourned pending another review. It was argued that in all the circumstances of the case the grievor was entitled to have his grievance heard and that no further adjournment should be granted. It was suggested that the employer offered-no explanation as to why the promised review could not have been undertaken earlier. Further it was submitted that, considering that in the ordinary course of events, classification grievances are not ordinarily presented following a Job audit, the employer would suffer no prejudice by being required to go forward. In the event that the review was completed prior to the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings it was always open to the parties to negotiate a settlement based on the results of the review. We are of the opinion that the adjournment should be granted. The Board has control over its own procedure and may, in its discretion, adjourn matters brought before it when it is satisfied that by granting an adjournment it will not cause undue prejudice to the party opposing the request. We' see no undue prejudice resulting from an adjournment of this matter on the terms to be set out below. The delay in prosecuting the grievance, considered in the context of grievance administration generally, is not lengthy. The grievance was filed in January; it may be resolved as a result of the process 'of review by late October; failing such resolution the grievor retains the rfght to process his grievance to arbitration. Consequently, we grant the adjournment on the same conditions as those set out supra in ~artung/Wolf. However, we would add a further condition,viz, that in the event that the' grievor remains unsatisfied with his classification following the review and re-evaluation of his position, his grievance be scheduled to be heard as soon as $ possible after November 1, 1989 and that 3 days (consecutive if possible) be set aside for that hearing. The Union requested that we attach< 2 further conditEons to the granting of the adjournment. i) that, in the event that the g=ievor is successful in his grievance, the employer be directed to pay interest in respect of any compensation awarded over the period from July 24, 1989 to the date of the hearing: and ii) that the Board direct the employer to disclose to the Union all documents used or generated with respect to the Job audit by the deadline of October 20, 1989. We decline to attach those conditions. Interest can be spoken to by counsel at any subsequent hearing into this matter should one be held. As for the disclosure of documents we note that this request would extend the union's right to disclosure significantly beyond that which is contemplated by Article 27.11.3 of the collective agreement which limits disclosure to documents relative to the position in question. Again, at any Subsequent hearing the Union may, within the scope of Article 27.11.3 seek disclosure of any documents which are not already disclosed pursuant to the terms and conditions of this order. Dated at LONDON, Ont. this 6_th day of September , 1989 O. J. Brandt, Vice Chairperson I. Thompson, Member D. Clark, _ Member