Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-1177.Skates et al.92-05-21 ONTARIO EMPLOY~-S DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPL O'fEES DE L 'ON TA RIO '~ GRIEYANCE COMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT R~GLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO, MSG 1Z8 TELEPHONE/T~LEPh'ONE: [4 ~6~ 325- 1388 RUE OUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIOI,, 1177/91 IN THE IqATTER OF ~N ~RBZTR~TION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARG/%INING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE ~ETTLEMENT BETWEEN OPSEU (Skates et al) Grievor The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Environment) Employer BEFORE: A. Barrett Vice-Chairperson S. Urbain Member D. Montrose Member FOR THE A. Ryder GRIEVOR Counsel Ryder, Whitaker, Wright & Chapman Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE C. Peterson EMPLOYER Counsel Winkler, Filion & Wakely Barristers & Solicitors HEARING April 8, 1992 DECISION This was a classification grievance of four employees classified as Maintenance Steamfitters who grieved that they were improperly classified. Prior to the hearing, two of the grievances were withdrawn: those of Mr. Churaman and Mr. Magnifico. Accordingly, we proceeded with the grievances of Mr. Holyk and Mr. Skates. The employer argued as a preliminary objection that an earlier settlement with these two grievors should be a bar to us proceeding to hear the case on its merits. We reserved on that issue and heard the evidence, primarily because the entire case was capable of completion in one day. In June, 1988, these grievors were classified as Maintenance Mechanics 3. They grieved their classification, requesting as their remedy that they be re- classified as Maintenance Steamfitters.' During the grievance procedure, the employer agreed to re-classify the grievors as requested, with retroactive back pay. Now the grievors wish to be re-classified by means of a Berry order to some more suitable classificatiOn which more correctly reflects their duties. There has been no change in job duties or working conditions since 1989 when the two earlier grievances were settled. We received in evidence the earlier grievances and the memoranda of settlement. Both were clear and unequivocal. We refused to a4~it evidence from the grievors as to why they initially wanted to be Maintenance Steamfitters and have now changed their minds, on the well-established principle that a board of arbitration ought not to look behind a settlement which is clear and unequivocal on its face. It is also a well-established principle of labour relations that settlements should be honoured, as stated in Re Canadian General-Tower L~d (Oakville Division) and United Rubber Workers. Local 292, 12 L.k'C. (4th) 153 (Craven), at page 155: " It is generally accepted that_boards of arbitration have jurisdiction to enforce settlements reached during the grievance procedure, and that in exercising this jurisdiction an arbitrator is to give effect to the parties' agreement, without going behind the terms of settlement to determine whether it was the 'right' result in the circumstances. The latter ~rinciple follows not' only from the law of contracts, but also from the sound industrial relations policy of encouraging the parties to settle their own disputes." While acknowledging the correctness of these general principles, union counsel argues that our jurisdiction to arbitrate classification grievances arises no~ through the collective agreement, but through a statutory duty in section 18(2) {a) of the Crown Employees Collective Baraainin~ Act. Union counsel says that employees are given a statutory right to grieve their classification and accordingly this Board has a duty to determine whether or not the grievors are appropriately classified. Thus we have a statutory duty to override a settlement to ensure a correct Classification system.. We do not think that classification grievances are given any · . I. special status.by being mentioned in' s ction 18(2) of CECBA. The 3 statute simply mandates that a grievor who claims he or she has been improperly classified may process the matter like a grievance, which leads us directly into the collective agreement grievance procedure. It was in the context of the collective agreement grievance procedure that the earlier classification grievances were settled. Section 18(1) of CECBA lists the exclusive functions of management, including the right to classify employees. There is nothing in the Act that hints that this Board should be monitoring the classification system to see that each and every classification is correct: quite the contrary, it is an exclusive management function. We can only determine an individual classification grievance, and in our view we are bound to do so in accordance with well-establis~ked, sound industrial relations principles. There is no issue of bad faith or misrepresentation which would allow us to go behind the settlement reached here. Accordingly, we uphold the settlement and dismiss these grievances. DATED at Toronto this 21st day of May, 1992. A. Barrett, Vice-Chairperson $. Urbain, Member D. Montrose