Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-1593.Vairo.01-04-10 Decision ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COL'RONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L 'ONTARIO GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 600 TORONTO ON M5G 128 TELEPHONElTELEPHONE, (416) 326-1388 180 RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 600 TORONTO (ON) M5G 128 FACSIMILElTELECOPIE. (416) 326-1396 GSB# 1593/98 OPSED#99B070 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Dmon (V aIro ) Gnevor - and - The Crown ill RIght of Ontano (Ontano Real~ CorporatIon) Employer BEFORE Jamce D Johnston Vice-ChaIT FOR THE Don MartIn GRIEVOR Gnevance OfficIer Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Dmon FOR THE Robert GordIca EMPLOYER Labour RelatIOns Consultant Human Resources ServIces Branch Management Board Secretanat HEARING March 29 2001 DECISION In this case, the grievor, Mr Frank Vairo, was surplused At the end of the twenty- four month period, he grieved that a particular vacancy had not been posted The position in question was a temporary vacancy of less than six months duration The applicable section of the collective agreement reads 86 1 Where an employee is assigned temporarily to a position, Article 6 (Posting and Filling of Vacancies or New Positions) shall not apply except where (i) the term of temporary assignment is greater than six (6) months duration, and (ii) the specific dates of term are established at least two (2) months in advance of the commencement of the temporary assignment. Therefore, the employer has no obligation under the collective agreement to post a temporary vacancy of less than six months duration The employer has made a motion to dismiss this case on the basis that there has been no violation of the collective agreement. The union does not dispute that there has been no violation of the collective agreement. According to Section 7(3) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act R S 0 1993, c 38, there must be a difference between the parties for this Board to have jurisdiction 2 For all of the reasons expressed in Re The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Government Services) and Ontario Public Services Employees Union (Stewart), June 22, 1995) unreported (Briggs), and Re The Crown in Right of Ontario (Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority) and Amalgamated Transit Union (Blake) (May 3, 1988) unreported (Shime), I have concluded that I do not have jurisdiction to hear and determine these grievances Accordingly, this grievance is dismissed Dated at Toronto, this 10th day of April, 2001 Janice Johnston, Vice-Chair 3