HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-2562.Hunt.93-05-05
ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
ii? .,. CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO
GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
11I11 SETTLEMENT ,
REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. M5G lZ8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE (416) 326- 1388
180, FlUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO) M5G lZ8 FACSIMILE /TELECOPIE (416) 326-1396
2562/92
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE'SETTLEMENT BOARI
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Hunt)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of the Solicitor Gener?l)
Employer
BEFORE J. Devlin Vice-Ch?irperson
FOR THE D. Liu
GRIEVOR Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE B Doherty
EMPLOYER Staff Relations Officer
Management Board of ~abinet
HEARING April 21, 1993
... r.
1
The Grievor, Robert Hunt, began his employment with the
Ontario Public Service in August of 1975 and retired on June 30,
1992, having reached the age of 65. At the time of his
retirement, the Grievor was working as a Security Officer 3 with
the ontario Government Protective Service
Approximately 6 months prior to his retirement, the
Grievor requested an overage appointment which was denied. The
subject of overage appointments is dealt with ih section 17 of
the Public Service Act which provides as follows
17. Every civil servant shall retire at the end of the
month in which he attains the age of sixty-five years, but,
where in the opinion of the Commission special circumstances
exist and where his deputy minister so requests in writing,
he may be reappointed by the Lieutenant Governor in council
for a period not exceeding one year at a time until the end
of the month in which he attains the age of seventy years
It was the position of the Union that in denying the
Grievor's request for an overage appointment, the Employer failed
to exercise its discretion in a bona fide and non-discrimiriatory
"-
manner. The Union further contended that the Grievor was denied
procedural fairness in the decision-making process. It was the
position of the Ministry that the subject of overage appointments
is not dealt with in either the collective agreement or the Crown
Employees Collective Bargaining Act and, accordingly, the Board
has no jurisdiction to deal with Mr Hunt's grievance
I
---
~ .,. '---
2
In my view; the position of the Ministry must prevail
In this case, the Grievor retired and, therefore, was not
dismissed from his employment Moreover, while section 17 of the
Public Service Act provides that where certain conditions are
satisfied, an employee may be granted an overage appointment, the
subject of overage appointments is not dealt with in either the
Collective Agreement or the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining
Act from which this Board derives jurisdiction Accordingly, the
Board has no authority to review the decision to deny the
Grievor's request for such an appointment
The conclusion I have reached is consistent with the
earlier awards of the Board in Keire 111/83 and Cole 1634/84.
Although in Hendershott 2188/90, the Board undertook a review of
the decision to deny an overage appointment, it does not appear
that any objection was taken to the Board's jurisdiction to do
so. In Grummett 1656/90 which involved the denial of an
extension of an overage appointment, it is also not clear that an
objection to jurisdiction was squarely raised before the Board
In the result, I find that the grievance is
inarbitrable and, accordingly, must be dismissed.
DATED AT TORONTO, this 5th day of May, 1993
~lluZ \4 ~l-
Vice-Chairperson