HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-0147.Wilson_Anastasakos et al.03-02-26 Decision
Crown Employees Commission de ~~
Grievance Settlement reglement des griefs
Board des employes de la
Couronne
~-,...
Suite 600 Bureau 600 Ontario
180 Dundas Sl. West 180 rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396 Telec. (416) 326-1396
GSB# 0147/95 0148/95 0812/99
UNION# 95C468 95C469 99C822
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Wilson/ Anastasakos et al ) Grievor
- and -
The Crown In RIght of Ontano
(Mimstry of TransportatIOn) Employer
BEFORE Richard Brown Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION RobIn Gordon
Gnevance Officer
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
FOR THE EMPLOYER Kelly Burke
Semor Counsel
Management Board Secretanat
HEARING February 25 2003
2
DECISION
Gnevances by Alex Wilson and Tom Anastasakos (GSB FIle 0812/99) KevIn Kelly (GSB FIle
0147/95) and Doug Levere (GSB FIle 0148/95) were consolIdated for heanng. In a decIsIOn dated
March 28 2001 Vice-Chair DIssanayake dIsmIssed one claim made by the umon on the ground It
amounted to an attempt to reclassIfy the posItIOn held by the gnevors
The earlIer decIsIOn dId not dIspose of a second claim advanced by the umon on behalf of the
four gnevors Mr DIssanayake descnbed thIS component of theIr gnevances as follows
When the Increases were awarded In 1994 some employees receIved a "step to step" Increase
For example, If they were at step 5 of the old wage gnd, they were placed at step 5 of the new
gnd. However the gnevors were treated dIfferently They were merely accorded a 3 per cent
promotIOnal Increase as a result of whIch, they moved from step 5 of the old gnd to step 3 of
the new gnd. (page 8)
The umon now concedes there IS not sufficIent eVIdence to support ItS earlIer allegatIOn of unfair
treatment. As there IS no longer any dIspute between the partIes to the collectIve agreement In thIS
regard, I dIsmIss the second component of the gnevances
The earlIer decIsIOn also left outstandIng a thIrd claim advanced by the umon on behalf ofMr
Levere ThIS component of hIS gnevance also was descnbed by Mr DIssanayake
When Mr Levere partIcIpated In the Job competItIOn for the UtIlIty Co-ordInator posItIOn, for
hIm that represented a promotIOn wIth a hIgher pay rate However after he assumed hIS new
posItIOn, folloWIng gnevances filed by certaIn other employees, hIS former posItIOn was found
by the GSB to have been Improperly classIfied. Further to a Board order hIS former posItIOn
was reclassIfied. The result was that hIS former posItIOn became hIgher paYIng than hIS new
posItIOn. In other words, what he belIeved was a promotIOn turned out to be a demotIOn. (pages
25 and 26)
A heanng on thIS component of the Levere gnevance IS scheduled for March 4 2003
Dated at Toronto the 26th day of February 2003
~~
/RIchard Brown
Vice-Chair