HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-2701.Dickinson&Segdwick.93-06-30
.__, '~~~_'_ __ _,...__--_...__h_._~__..-.._.___~__:_-.---.--_..___.--".----.-U-.."'--'"'7-----" _.-"_".---.-._.....-__. !..T:-:---______.~ur. -.-.._;-_--:.....-_ ___ ~....._.__h._.
./'"- .tik-....:.;.:-;; ,:L- l::-......_,'"..:t:. ;:. -1"- ,:'-.L~\:;. ,-.::.:-: _ ,;,S ,~.
.;,~
_...... .. . .ONTARIO EMPLOYESDELACOURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO
.11....... . II.. GRIEVANCE CpMMISSION DE
; '. . . SETTLEMENT REGlEMENT
'. . BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 2100 TORONTO, ONTARIO, M5c; lZ8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE (476) 326-/388
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 2100 TORONTO (ONTARIO) M5G U8 FACSIMILE/TELECOpiE (476) 326-7396
2701/92, 2702/92, 2873/92, 2874/92
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
-- Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Dickinson/Segdwick)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of ontario
(Ministry of Education)
Employer
BEFORE G Charney Vice-Chairperson
FOR THE G Richards
GRIEVOR Senior Grievance Officer
ontario Public Service Employees Union
\
FOR THE A Dods r
EMPLOYER Staff Relations Consultant
Ministry of Education
HEARING June 29, 1993
)
,
-- --
~..
AWARD
The Union's position is that based on the fact that the
')
grievors, that are a plumber and an electrician, have had the same
schedules, 7:00 a m to 3 - 30 pm, for some 15 years, that the
Employer is not entitled to change their schedules without
agreement of the Union Their schedules have been changed to a-oo
a.m. to 4:30 p in
The Union argues that the Employer is now estopped from
changing their schedule~ because a representation was made to the
Union over a period of 15 years and reasonably assumed by the
bargaining unit that the hours of the electrician and plumber wouid
not be changed The Union relied on that There wap detriment by
not raising the matter in collective bargaining
The Employer regularly changes schedules of other people in
the bargaining unit and the local unit
It is the view of the Board that the Union's reliance on not
changing schedules on a position by position basis is not the sort
of detrimental reliance that is thought of when' an estoppel arises
It might have been different if the Employer had never changed
anyone's schedule in the bargaining unit or the local unit
-=-----~-- --
-- - -~ --'
,to
For the Union to try to assert that they would have
successfully negotiated no shift changes for crafts people is
reaching and in my view no estoppel exi$ts
The second grievance is byMr Dickinson that the Employer
violated the Collective Agreement in assigning him to lock up the I
school I
I
The Union'~ position is that this action by the Employer is
unreasonable and though not necessarily a violation of the
Collective Agreement, is_ grievable
,
The Employer's position is that the changing of the schedule
was triggered not only by the lock up, which was part of it
perhaps, but the retirement of a maintenanc,e person and, as a
result the crafts people were required after the students left In
any event, the arbitration Board is not entitled to second guess
the Employer on whether it requires the plumber and the electrician
after the students leave or not Nor is it, in my view, the right
of the Board to question whom the Employer assigns to do the lock
up This action by the Employer falls far short of any conceivable
I
assertion by the Union that the Employer's behaviour is arbitrary
and/or dangerous
Similarly, Mr. S3dgewick's final grievance, grieving the
change of hours is dismissed on the same basis, namely that.. the
Employer is entitled to change hours in the way that it has,
-----~ -- ~----_._-
.."
-., ..
especially when considering that some 15 years ago, sedgewick's
hours were 8-00 a m to 4 30 P m and they were changed by the
Employer to 7:00 a m to 3 30 p.m
"-
In result then, all of the grievances are dismissed
DATED at Toronto this 30th day of June, 1993
.~ /??t ~/
Gerald J_ Charney, Vice-Chairperson
-,
,
/-