HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-0438.Rolfe.90-04-03 ONTARtO EMPLOY~-S DE I..A COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE t.'ONTARtO
GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSlON DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, TORONTO, ONTARIO. MSG 1Z8- SUITE2100 TELEPHONE/T~'L~PHONE
I$0, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, TORONTO, (ONTARIO) MSG 1Z8. BUREAU 2~O0 (416)598-0688
438/89, 444/89
445/89, 446/89, 447/89
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN=
OPSEU (Rolfe)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown i~ ~£ght o[ Ontario
(Ministry of Correctional Services}
Employer
BEFORE: W. Low Vice-Chairperson
F. Taylor Member
D. Montrose Member
FOR THE I. Roland
GRIEVO~: Counsel
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE C. Kay-Aggio
EMPLOYER: Counsel
Hicks Morley Hamilton
Stewart Storie
Barristers & Solicitors
HEARING: February 27, 1990
DECISION
The Grievor, Roger Rolfe, is a Correctional Officer 2
at the Metropolitan Toronto West Detention Centre. The Grievor
has five grievances before the Board today, all arising from
competition No. C1-1024-89 for the position of OM14. All the
grievances are dated April 10, 1989. The first grievance is that
a probationary staff CO1 was permitted to enter the competition;
the second grievance is that the competition was flawed in that
management used personal suitability as one of the criteri'a in
the selection process and relied on personal opinion; the third
grievance is that the Ministry failed to proceed in accordance
with the policy procedures and staffing standards relating to the
C03 classification; the fourth grievance is that the appointment
of C02 Holroyd was unfair; the fifth grievance is that the
management of the Metro West Detention Centre treated the Grievor
unfairly and in a biased manner.
Mr. Rolfe commenced his employment with the Ministry in
1975, and from 1979 to 1989, he held a position as Correctional
Officer 3. In 1989, that position was abolished and Mr. Rolfe,
together with all 27 other CO3's was demoted to the position of
Correctional Officer 2.
The employer then created 21 positions designated as
OM14. The job of the 0M14 is to perform the former C03
functions, together with certain additional functions. It is an
2
agreed fact that the new OM14 position is not a bargaining unit
position. The employer held a competition No. C1-1024-89 to
fill these 21 new management positions, and Mr. Rolfe entered the
competition but without success. His grievances concern the
manner in which the competition was conducted.
There is an unusual circumstance in this matter in that
Mr. Rolfe found himself in a position of having to compete for a
non-bargaining unit position which entailed performing
essentially the same functions that he kad performed as a
Correctional officer 3 for the ten years before the position was
abolished and he was demoted. Mr. Rolfe found he had to compete
to regain the ~e f_~ status and job which he had held prior to
this time. It was thus urged on us that if Mr. Rolfe, a
bargaining unit employee, had to enter the competition just to be
able to hold the ground he had occupied before, that the
standards and criteria applicable in the holding of competitions
for bargaining unit positions should apply. While we are
sympathetic to Mr. Rolfe's position in the circumstances, we
unanimously hold that Mr. Rolfe's grievances are not arbitrable
by this Board, and must be dismissed. The employer has made a
preliminary objection that the Board has no jurisdiction .to
entertain the grievances. We were referred to the decisions of
Arbitrator Jolliffe in Cunnin~ham, Arbitrator Teplitsky in u~
and Arbitrator Weatherill in Lansey, all of which held that a
grievance as to the conduct of a competition for a non-bargaining
unit position is not arbitrable by this Board.
Article 4.01 of the Collective Agreement governs
Articles 4.2 through 4.5. In short, the procedures set out at
Article 4 apply only to a bargaining unit position or a new
classified position created in the bargaining unit. As the OM
14 position was neither, we are of the view that the grievance is
not arbitrable and must be dismissed.
DATED at Toronto this 3rd day of April , 1990.
WAILAN LOW . Iff~e-Chairperson
F. ~AYLOR y" Member
D. MONTROSE Me. er