HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-1564.Barrett et al.03-06-24 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# 1564/98
UNION# 99B027
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Barrett et al. ) Grievor
- and -
The Crown In RIght of Ontano
(Mimstry ofCommumty FamIly and ChIldren's ServIces) Employer
BEFORE Jules Bloch Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Suneel Bahal
Counsel
Management Board Secretanat
FOR THE EMPLOYER Peggy E SmIth
ElIot, SmIth
BarrIsters and SOlICItorS
HEARING June 9 2003
2
Preliminary Award
1 ThIS group gnevance was referred to the Gnevance Settlement Board (GSB) for arbItratIOn.
On December 18 2000 a memorandum of settlement was entered Into between OPSEU
WillIam Barrett, gnevor and The Crown In nght of Ontano as represented by the Mimstry of
Commumty & SocIal ServIces ThIS gnevance Involves a facIlIty whIch has subsequently been
pnvatIzed. The partIes agree that I have JunsdIctIOn for the purpose of rendenng thIS
prelImInary award.
2 The umon requested that thIS matter be re-lIsted to deal wIth the other Issues relatIng to thIS
group gnevance OPSEU asserts that thIS gnevance IS a group gnevance and thus the
memorandum of settlement referred to above only resolves the Issues as they pertaIn to Mr
Barrett.
3 The Crown raises four prelImInary Issues The Crown argues that thIS gnevance IS not
properly before me because the facts do not relate to a sIngle event and therefore cannot be put
forward as a group gnevance AlternatIvely In remaInIng arguments, the Crown asserts that
the gnevance has been eIther prevIOusly settled or termInated.
4 The partIes further agree that the gnevance relates to a number of IndIVIduals In the bargaInIng
umt. The partIes agree that the vanous Issues, whIch on theIr face are separate and free-
standIng complaInts or events, relate to the actIOns of one supervIsor
5 The umon submIts that I should deal wIth thIS group gnevance because the actIOns of thIS
supervIsor have created a "pOIsoned work envIronment." The employer asserts that the umon
should have filed a number of IndIVIdual gnevances or alternatIvely a polIcy gnevance
6 In dISmISSIng thIS matter I do not find It necessary to comment on the aspects of the case that
Involve eIther the prevIOUS settlement of the gnevance or alternatIvely the putatIve termInatIOn
of the gnevance ArtIcle 22 11 1 of the CollectIve Agreement whIch deals wIth group
gnevances states, "In the event that more than one employee IS dIrectly affected by one
specIfic IncIdent or cIrcumstance a group gnevance shall be presented. sIgned by such
employees to the Employer at Stage 2 "
7 The partIes agreed that the only common thread In thIS gnevance IS the actIOns or InactIOns of
a supervIsor as those actIOns relate to separate alleged IncIdents InvolvIng vanous members of
the bargaInIng umt. The IncIdents complaIned of are properly dIsposed of as IndIVIdual
gnevances If thIS were not the case, each actIOn by a supervIsor towards her or hIS
supervIsees would be a group gnevance ThIS was not the IntentIOn of the partIes Further If
the umon wants to deal wIth thIS matter on the basIs of a "pOIsoned work envIronment," I
would draw the umon's attentIOn to ArtIcle 22 13 of the CollectIve Agreement between the
partIes
3
8 I find that the complaInts dIscussed hereIn Involve vanous members of the bargaInIng umt
cannot be brought as a group gnevance because thIS gnevance does not Involve" more than
(1) employee who IS dIrectly affected by one specIfic IncIdent or cIrcumstance " ThI s
gnevance IS therefore dIsmIssed.
Dated at Toronto thIS 24th day of June 2003