HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-0413.Fogal et al.01-02-02 Decision
o NTARI 0 EMPLOYES DE LA COL'RONNE
CROWN EAIPLOYEES 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 #0413/99
OPSEU#99U039
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano Pubhc ServIce Employees Uruon
(F ogal et al.)
Gnevor
- and -
The Crown m RIght of Ontano
(Mimsm of the Attome, General)
Employer
BEFORE F ehcI~ Bnggs V Ice Chair
FOR THE Nelson Roland, Counsel
GRlEVOR Bamster and SohcItor
FOR THE Steve Patterson, Counsel
EMPLOYER Legal ServIces Branch
Management Board Secretanat
HEARING December 19 2000 and Januan 18 2001
2
DECISION
DUrIng negoTIaTIons for the present collecTIve agreement, the partIes sIgned a Memorandum of
Agreement regarding possible ImpOSITIOn of discIphne for certaIn alleged strike related acTIVIty On
May 3, 1999 the Employer sent a letter to the Uruon that stated, m part:
ThIS IS to mform you that, as part of non-discIplmmy actIon, certaIn OPSEU employees
enga~d m illegal strike actIVIty dunng March 1999, will not be paId for the penod of the
actIVIty Further, as discIplmmy actIon under the memorandum, ffillllstnes will be sending
letters of repnmand to the employees mvolved, Attached you will find a hst of the specIfic
employees, theIr rrurustIy, locaTIon and the dates of the illegal strike actIVIty
In accordance With the Memorandum of Agreement, the partIes asked the Board to
mediate/arbItrate the two Issues m dispute, At the first day of heanng the rames agreed that I
would have JUrIsdictIon over all matter that flow from the JUrIsdictIon, whether direct or mdirect,
There were m excess of four hundred employees from three ffillllstnes and twenty different
workplaces mvolved, At a heanng day on September 7, 2000, the Employer mformed the Board
and the Uruon that It was not proceeding With the Issue of the ImpOSITIOn of discIplme, However,
that left the Issue of whether SIck leave would be paId for those employees who did not attend at
work. Given the vast number of employees mvolved and the potenTIal for lengthy hTIgaTIon, the
partIes made subrrusslOns about the process that should be followed for the effiCient management
of the outstanding matters, In a deCISIon Issued m November of 2000, I estabhshed a process to be
followed, In accordance With that procedure, we scheduled two days of heanng at Maplehurst
CorrecTIonal Centre outSIde Toronto on December 19 and 20, 2000 NOTIce was sent to each of
the SIX employees affected, In accordance With ny order, partIculars were proVIded to the
Employer m advance of the heanng, Because certaIn absenteeIsm mformaTIon was not available
to the Employer at tlns TIme, the partIes subrrusslOns were proVIded on Janumy 18, 2001
3
It IS not my mtenTIon to reVIew all of the eVIdence at tlns pomt. I will, at a later date, proVIde
reasons for my decIsIons, For now, It IS suffiCIent to say Mr R Bnese IS the only employee that I
found to have been legITImately ill on the day at Issue, I remaIn seIzed m the event that there IS any
difficulty With the ImplementaTIon of tlns award,
We will contmue to attend at vanous workplaces around the proVlllce to hear and determme
outstanding matters, I expect that nOTIce will be proVIded to all affected employees,
Dated at Toronto, tlns 2nd day ofFebrumy, 2001
FehcIty Bnggs, Vice-ChaIr