HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-0671.Union.90-11-20
:'"¡ c.
-~....~
"
.. ONTARIO EMPLOYÉS DE LA COURONN£ .
. CROWN EMPLOYEES DE t'ONTARIO
,. .o'!"-
ÎlII GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
~
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
-SOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO. ONTARIO. MSG lZ8 TEL£PHONEITÉLÉPHONE: (416) 326-1388
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTAAIO). MSG IZ8 FACSIMILEITÉLÉCOPJE : (416) 326-13f16
I
671/90
i
IN THE HATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
under·
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Union Grievance)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of 'Ontario
(Ministry of Government Services)
¡
Employer
BEFORE: B. Fisher Vice-Chairperson
D. Wintermute Member
D. Montrose Member
FOR THE R. Stephenson
GRIEVOR Counsel
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE I. Werker
EMPLOYER Counsel
Fraser & Beatty
Barristers & Solicitors
HEARING: October 5, 1990
,~~~..;,. .~ (
This case involves a contention by the Union that the Employer failed to post
certain jobs, namely the jobs of Cleaner I and Cleaner Office Buildings in the
courthouse at 361 University Avenue in Toronto.
The evidence revealed that since December of 1988, the janitorial staff on the night
shift has decreased to a significant degree due to attrition. The Union contends
that insofar as the courthouse has not shrunk in the last couple of years and since
it is still being cleaned, the work previously performed by the retired employees has
been simply redistributed among the remaining employees. This, the Union argues,
creates a vacancy which must be posted in accordance with Article 4.
However the evidence of the Building Supèrintendent, Mr. Spiro Krimbalist clearly
showed that although the area whkh each employee is responsible for cleaning has
increased, the frequency of cleaning tasks has been substantially reduced. He
produced a list of 61 separate duties which prior to May 1990 were performed by
bargaining unit staff and showed how those duties were reduced after May 1990 by
means of contracting out and by means of reducing the frequency of cleaning.
Therefore, the 24 duties performed by Cleaner I and Cleaner Office Buildingst the
frequency of 21 of those duties has been reduced. In effect although each employee
is cleaning a larger area, the level of cleaning has been reduced.
This Board therefore finds that on the evidence the workload of the individual
employees has not increased since May 1990, and therefore there is no factual basis
from which to conclude that a vacanty exists.
It is therefore not necessary for this Board to determine the issue as to whether or
not the Employer can redistribute existing work to other employees without posting
the job under Article 4, as it is not necessary to decide that issue to determine
this grievance.
. . \. c..
:¡.,"":'" ..~-
~ . ' .. 0....
- 2-
The grievance party is therefore dismissed. i
"
!
,
Dated at Toronto this 20tl-dayof November 1990.
I JU~
D. wintenout:e-:. Member
- . \\1
. ..
~. ~~ ~
.
'"-.... -
I). ~ontrose,~ennber