HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-0541.Union.98-08-06 Decision
O/llTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'O/llTARIO
1
1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
t80 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE {JOO, TORONTO ON M5G tZ{J TELEPHONEfTELfPHONE (416) 326-1388
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU {JOO, TORONTO (ON) M5G tZ8 FACSIMILEfTELfCOPIE (416) 326-13g(j
GSB#0541/98
OPSEU# 98U065
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Umon Gnevance)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown In RIght of Ontano
(Mimstry of Commumty and Social ServIces)
Employer
BEFORE W Kaplan Vice-Chair
FOR THE G Leeb
UNION Gnevance Officer
Ontano Pubhc ServIce Employees Umon
FOR THE S Mason
EMPLOYER Counsel, Legal ServIces Branch
Mimstry of Commumty and Social ServIces
HEARING July 30, 1998
I 2
IntroductIOn
In order to admuuster the new Ontano DIsabIlIty Support Program Act, the employer
has establIshed a new office called the Dlsabulty AdjudIcatIOn Urut (hereafter "the
urut") To staff the urut, the employer has created a new bargalrung unIt pOSItIon
called the DIsabilIty DetermmatIOn AdjudIcator In February 1998, the employer
posted 21 of these pOSItIons WIth applIcatIons restrIcted to members of the OntarIO
PublIc ServICe A Job competItIOn was held, and fourteen Job offers were made The
employer then advertIsed the remauung pOSItIons externally, and a number of the
remalrung pOSItIons were filled A unIon gnevance was filed, as were some fifteen
mdlvldual gnevances from OPSEU members who had competed unsuccessfully tor
the pOSItIon.
A number of prelunmary matters proceeded before me at a hearmg m Toronto ThIs
award constItutes a record of both the agreement of the partIes WIth respect to certam
of those matters and my dIrectIon m regard to the remammg matter m dIspute.
Agreed upon Matters
1. Dlsdosure
The employer agreed to make a full and complete dlsdosure to the unIOn of all of ItS
records relatIng to thIS Job competItIon, both mternal and external, and to do so by
August 14, 1998 and sooner If possible
2. Order of Proceedmg
The partIes agreed that the employer would, on days already scheduled, proceed first
by callmg eVIdence on how the Job competItIon process was run. N otwlthstandmg
thIS departure from the usual practIce, the unIOn contInues to bear the eVIdentIary
onus, and m callmg lts eVIdence, would be reqUIred to meet that burden. Alter the
uruon has put m ItS case, and that of the varIOUS gnevors, the employer IS entItled to
a broad nght of reply The employer explICItly acknowledged at the heanng that one of
the possible outcomes - WIthout obVIOusly concedmg It was a proper or even a likely
3
result m thIS case - was that the Board could, m exerCIsmg ItS remedIal powers, dIrect
that one or more of t.he gnevors or, perhaps, even all of them, be placed m the
contested posItIons
Direction
The outstandmg matter before me was the questIOn ot notIce. Havmg heard the
representatIons of the partIes, I am of the VIew that all of the successful applIcants tor
the posltIOn, both mternal and external, and mcludmg those hrred to fill vacanCIes
that currently eXlst, should be notIfied of thIS proceedmg, and of theIr nght to attend
and to be represented by counsel.
Conclusion
As already noted, thIS matter has been scheduled for a heanng m September 1998
before another vlce-chan ot the Board. In those CIrcwnstances, It seems reasonable to
me that any Issue as to the mterpretatIOn or unplementatIon of thIS award should, It
such an Issue arlses, be placed before that VIce-chaIr
DATED at Toronto thIS 6th day of August 1998
Ir~
.
WillIam Kaplan
V Ice-Charrperson