Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-1847.Carolli.00-10-05 Decision o NTARW EMPU) YES DE LA COURONNE CROW"! EMPLOYEES DE L '()NTARW 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# 1847/99 OPSED#00E010 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Druon (CarollI) GIievor - and - The Crown III RIght of Ontano (Mirustn of Health and Long Term Care) Employer BEFORE Bam Fisher Vice ChaIr FOR THE Kathleen Lawrence GRIEVOR Gnevance Officer Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Druon FOR THE Janet Myers EMPLOYER Employee Relanons Consultant Mimsm of Health and Long-Term Care HEARING September 12, 2000 2 AWARD ThIS gnevance mvolves a claim under ArtIcle 7 1 2 of the CollectIve Agreement regardmg Pay AdmmIstratIOn. ThIS case was heard as part of the med/arb process The Gnevor settled a prevIOUS gnevance on April 21, 1999 at WhICh tIme It was agreed that the Gnevor was to be permanently assIgned to the posItIOn of a Hardware Network TechnICian, WhICh held the classIficatIOn of a Systems Officer 2 Unfortunately for the Gnevor, there was no dIscussIOn at the tIme of settlement as to where the Gnevor would be placed on the appropnate pay gnd. It should be noted that the Gnevor sIgned the settlement agamst the advIce of hIS Local OPSEU PresIdent. In fact the gnevor obtamed legal advIce from hIS own lawyer on whether or not he should accept the settlement. The gnevor dId not raise the Issue of the placement on the pay gnd wIth hIS lawyer, nor IS It even clear that hIS lawyer had a copy of the CollectIve Agreement. The gnevor assumed that as he had m effect been performmg the dutIes of a Hardware Network TechnICian for seven years before he was confirmed mto the posItIOn, that he should have been put at the top of the Hardware Network TechnICian pay gnd. However that assumptIOn by the gnevor was mcorrect. ArtIcle 7 1 2 of the CollectIve Agreement makes It clear that, subject to a mmImum 3% pay mcrease, where an employee receIves a promotIOn, the employee's new pay IS at the lowest level m the new pay gnd. ThIS IS what the employer dId m thIS case I therefore find that the Gnevor was properly placed on the salary gnd followmg the settlement of hIS prevIOus gnevance The gnevance IS therefore dIsmIssed. 3 Dated at Toronto tills 5th day of October, 2000 Barry B FIsher, VIce Chair