Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-1762.Baylis.90-08-14 SETrLEMENT REGLEMENT . 5.Fp ,5 1990 BOARD DES GRIEFS GRIEVA~.;C~. ADMINI5 ii~,\TION 180, RuE ~NO~S OUEST, BUREAU 2~, TORO~O [ONTARIOJ. MEG fZ8 "~A~,~ ~T~I E.C~I_~ .*~6} ~26-~396 [76Z/89 ' 'Under .~ ' G~i~CE SETTLEMENT BO~ OPSEU (Ba¥1±s) G~ievor - and - The'Crown in ~ight o~ Ontario (~inist~y o~ Correctional Services) Employer - and - BEFORE: J. Samuels Vice-Chairperson M. Vorster Member D. Daugharty Member THE P. Lukasiewicz GRIEVOR: Counsel Gowting, Strathy & Henderson Barristefs.& Solicitors FOR THE G. Lee EMPLOYER: Senior Staff Relations Officer Staff Relations Branch Ministry of Correctional Services The..grievor is .a Social Worker 2. He claims that, when he was first hired, by the Ministry to work at the Metro West Detention Centre, he was promised a:'c'er~Lain-salary level on the salary grid, and the Ministry did not uw up tu un.~ pxumi~. The Ministry raises two preliminary objections .... firstly, that the Board doe~ not have jurisdiction over this matter; and, secondly} that the ~' grieyance is untimely. -'.".: Thd":Min{~try's primary, wimess was not available on the day of hearing, S6'we were able to deal-only with the issue of jurisdiction. The second preliminary objection and the merits will await another day. In brief, the Ministry's first objection is based on the argument that, ' at the time of hiring, the Employer has full discretion to place an employee Wilson, Robinson and GIeadhill, 458/80, 525/80 and 526/80 (McLaren). However, in a more reCent decision, the Board has drawn a distinction between appoin~ent and placement on the sa/au grid, and has said &at ~e latter is arbitrable because it is a matter of administration of page 7. In our view, Neary is correct. ~e parties have a collective agreement establishing ~e salary rates. ~ough management has wide powers in ~e matter of placement of employees on the sala~ grid, ~d ~erefore there are few oppo~nities for ~ employee to-g~eve placement successfully, nonetheless, placement on ~e'salary grid is a matter of administration of ~e co~ective agreement. ~d] pursuant to section 19(1) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, a 'difference concerning ~e admiaistration of a co~ective agreement may be refexed to ~is Board for dete~ination. Section 19(1) roads: , , 19.--(I) Every collective agreement shall be deemed to provide that in the event the parties are unable to effect a settlement of any differences between them arising from the interpretation, application, administration'or alIeged cotttravention of the agreement, including any question as to whether a matter is arbitrable, such matter may be refer- red for arbitration to the Grievance Settlement Board and the Board after giving full opportunity to the parties to present their evidence and to make their submissions, shall decide the matter and its decision is final and binding upon the parties and the employees covered by the agreement. This legislative provision makes clear this Board's broad jurisdiction to deal.with differences between the parties concerning the "interpretation, application, administration or alleged contravention of the agreement". Where there is such a difference, a grievor has the right to put forward evidence and argument in. support of the grievance. In our vierS, ev(~ in the absence of any specific languige in the agreement, it is implicit in the collectiqe agreement that management will administer the collective agreement in good faith~ For~ example, management cannot engage in fraudulent misrepresentation with impunity. If, in order to lure a prospective employee away from some other job, management promised an employee a certain salary level on the grid, and then, after the employee left the previous position and came to work for the Ministry, the employee was paid at. a lower level, in our view the employee would have recourse before this Board. This would be an example of bad faith in the administration of the salary provisions of the collective agreement, and this Board has the authority to provide a remedy, In our case, the grievor alleges bad faith. We have the authority to hear his evidence and argument. For these reasons, we dismiss the prelim.ina~ objection conceming the Board's jurisdiction. We will reconven¢ 6n November 15. Done at London, Ontario, this 14th day of August: , 19~0. Samuels, Vice-Chairman M. Vorster, Member D. Daugharty, .