HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-0176.Bronkhurst et al.90-05-08, GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WESL ~ORONTO, ON~RtO. M5G IZ8-SUI~ 21~ ~LEPHONE/T£L£PHONE
1219/89, 1244/89, 1245/89
1278/89, 1353/89
1772/~,16~/~,1774/~
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN:
OPSEU (Bronkhurst et al)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Health)
Employer
BEFORE: P. Knopf Vice-Chairperson
M. Vorster Member
H. Roberts Member
FOR THE P. Paloso
GRIEVOR: Counsel
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE M. Farson
EMPLOYER: Counsel
Fraser & Beatt¥
Barristers and Solicitors
BEARING: February 27, 1990
DECISION
The parties have asked the Board for directions on
the future progress of these matters. Having regard to the
submissions of counsel, we made the following orders orally
at the hearing on February 27, 1990 and hereby confirm them
as follows:
1. The following cases are consolidated with Files
176/89, 1089/89 and 1150/89;
1219/89 (89D 978)
1244/89 (89E 052 - 89E 107)
1245/89~(89E 050 - 89E 051)
1278/89 (89E 197 - 89E 198
1353/89 (89E 390 - 89E 539)
362/89
1582/89
1613/89
530/89
58O189
695/89
697/89
I541/89
The outstanding PNA classification grievances
at the Brockville institutions, not yet
assigned' GS8 file numbers, shall also be
considered as part of this case.
2. By. or before April 30, 1990, the following is
to OCCUr:
(a) Each party is to identify to the other one
Institution it chooses to designate as the
subject matter of the initial hea~.ing.
- 2 -
(b) The Union is then to designate and identify
to the Ministry one representative qrievor
from each of the two Institutions. Where
the Union believes there are differences
within an Institution between people
covered by the case, the Unionlcan
designate further representatives within
the Institution to deal only with the
differences, on a representative basis.
;
In making these designations, the Union is
also to signify to the Ministry who is
being covered or represented by each
designation.
(c) Upon receipt of the above info~mation from
the Union, the Ministry is to ~eview and
consider the people chosen as .
representatives with the purpose of
determining whether they can be accepted as
representative of the people aA specified.
If the Ministry accepts the ~
representative(s) as appropriate, the case
can proceed on that basis.
If the Ministry disputes the
appropriateness of the designation, the
parties are to try together tol determine a
mutually agreeable choice. ~
If no agreement can be reached by or before
April 30, 1990, either party can apply to
the Board to remove the consolidation.
3. Until the Institutions are named and
representatives are agreed upon by' the parties
in accordance with oaragraph 2 above, the case
should not be scheduled for hearing.
4. If the matter does proceed to hearing, the
Board will hear evidence and submissions on the
two Institutions chosen Dy the Darties under
paragraph 2(a) above. An Award will then issue
dealing with these two Institituions. The
Institutions covered by any other files which
are the subject of this consolidation order
shall not be scheduled for hearing until such
an Award is released. The scheduling will then
be done in consultation with the parties.
4. In order to expedite the scheduling of a
hearing on the merits of this case, the parties
can agree that this panel is no longer seized
with these matters.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 8th day of May,
1990.
/
~6f~ Kno~ - Vice-Chairperson
M. Vorster Member
I.-I. Robot t:~ - ~ember