HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-3593.Northover.93-08-03
~- ---- ---~._---~._~-~--~---------~_._----- -- --
-----.. ----'---,-~. ----- - .-. -~-
~ ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
~ / ~, CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO
_II GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
~
SEITLEMENT REGLEMENT
~,' . BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 2100 TORONTO, ONTARIO M5G IZ8 TELEPHONEITEU='PHONE (416) 326-138
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 2100 TORONTO (ONTARIO) M5G lZ8 FACSIMILE TELECOPIE (416) 326-139
3593/92
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Northover)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of ontario
(Ministry of Co~rectional Services)
Employer
,
BEFORE J. Devl in vice-Chairperson
FOR THE N. Disalle
GRIEVOR Grievance Officer
ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE M Mously
EMPLOYER Grievance Negotiations Officer
Ministry of Correctional Services
HEARING July 19, 1993
~~~-
-- --~- -~ -_._--_._-----~------"
---- ~_........._-~ ---.,-...--._.-~-~-~--~- ,-----~'--"--~-- -- -~~- ~~--~---_._-------~,._--
"
lJ
1
The grievance, which was filed by Judy Northover,
concerns the application of the pay administration provisions of
the collective agreement
The Grievor joined the ontario Public Service in 1981
and worked with the Ministry of Health in a position which was
classified at OAG level 3. In July of 1990, she was promoted to
the position of Probation & Parole Secretary with the Ministry of
Correctional Services in Sault Ste Marie This position was
classified at OAG level 6 and, upon her promotion, the Grievor
was placed at step 4, of the salary range. Thereafter, she
-
received certain salary and merit increases until her promotion
to a position with the Ministry of Community and Social Services
in April of 1992.
subsequently, in August of 1992, as a result of
classification grievances previously filed by the Grievor and a
number of other employees, the Employer agreed to reclassify the
position of Probation & Parole Secretary in Sault ste. Marie from
OAG 6 to OAG 7 effective December 31, 1985 and to OAG 8 effective
January 1,1986. The Employer further undertook to prepare a
current position specification and to pay the Grievors
appropriate retroactivity together with interest.
(
-~-
--~--_._-,.- -'--~-- _. ----~~-- .----.---------..:..,....-
----i--.______.___:.--_~__._______'_"_.__,~______, .__ -"--:-._~____"_._~ _-",--... ~ ~-_. ,--
~
,\,
2
In the Grievor's case, however, the Employer took the
position that no retroactivity was payable as, in view of the
reclas~ification, the position of Probation & Parole Secretary
ought to have been classified at OAG 8 at the time of the
Grievor's application for the position. In this event, it was
submitted that the Grievor would have been placed at step 1 of
the salary range (rather than at step 4 which was appr~priate to
OAG 6) and that, on this basis, she received rates of pay which
were virtually identical to the rates she would have received had
the position been properly classified It was the submission of
the Union, however, that the Employer elected to place the
Gr~evor at step 4 of the salary range upon her promotion and -
cannot now alter that placement.
The relevant provision of the collective agreement is
Article 5.1.2. which provides as fo;Llows:
512 An employee who is promoted shall receive that rate of
pay in the salary range of the new classification which
is the next higher to his present rate of pay, except
that.
- where such a change results in an increase of less
than three percent (3%), he shall receive the next
higher salary rate again, which amount will be
considered as a one-step increase;
- a promotional increase shall not result on the
employee's new salary rate exceeding the maximum
of the new salary range except where permitted by
salary note.
--
-._-----,.-~-,,""-- -.-- ----~---" "-,.--. .'.. ,----~._-_._- -
-._.----~.--,.. ~ ----~ ~----~--~ -......,. -----; --_.................__._-~~ -~-~-~_._~- ---- ------,-~---'-
i
:)) .
3
Having considered the matter carefully, I find that the
position of the Employer must prevail Immediately prior to her
promotion to the position of Probation & Parole secretary, the
Grievor was evidently at step 5 of the salary range of her OAG 3
position with the Ministry of Health. Upon her promotion, she
was placed at step 4, of the OAG 6 salary range which is
consistent with the requirements of Article 5 1.2. which provides
that an employee who is promoted shall be placed at a step in the
salary_range which will result in increase of 3% or more.
(AI though there was some suggestion by the Union that in matters
of placement, the Employer takes into account experience and
related factors, there was nothing to indicate that such factors-
affected the Grievor's placement in this case.)
In any event, in August of 1992, the parties agreed
that the reclassification of the position of Probation & Parole'
Secretary was to be retroactive to a period prior to the
Grievor's promotion and, in these circumstances, it is my view
that the Emplo~er could properly calculate the Grievor's pay
based on the increase she would have received had position been
classified at OAG level 8 This has the effect of placing the
\ Grievor in the position she would have been had the position been
properly classified at the time of her promotion. Moreover, I
find that there is no basis for a claim of discrimination ,and
that the circumstances in Sturch G.S.B. #0611/86, which was
relied upon by the union, are distinguishable
- --- -.---
-- -~ ._~---- _.~._-". .------,~ .~...O__~_. _.~--'.-. --~ - -- ---.- ~._--
--- -~-----------~ ~- ~------~~--._. -~----_.-
.
(.(-;--';';'
4
As well, although the Union suggested that the doctrine
of estoppel ought to apply to preclude the Employer from altering
the Grievor's placement at step 4, the Employer advised the
Grievor at the time of her promotion that she would be placed at
step 4 of the OAG 6 salary range and paid an hourly rate of
"- $14.88 per hour In my view, the Union cannot single out one
aspect of that representation for the purpose of setting up an
estoppel. Moreover, there is no dispute that the Grievor was
paid in accordance with the Employer's representation and the
only issue concerns whether she is entitled to any additional
-
monies as a result of the reclassification. For the reasons set
out, I have determined that she is not and, accordingly, her
grievance must be dismissed.
DATED AT TORONTO, this 3rd day of August, 1993.
~
lCUtl~ ~ ~ .
1-
Vice Chairperson
4 _. _.__ -