HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-1991.Harnden et al.05-09-01 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# 1999-1991 1999-2007 2000-0592, 2000-0598
UNION# 1999-0234-0078 1999-0234-0032, 1999-0234-0041 1999-0234-0073
1999-0234-0031 1999-0234-0068 1999-0234-0057 1999-0234-0064
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Harnden et al ) Union
- and -
The Crown In RIght of Ontano
(Mimstry of Commumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer
BEFORE Barry Stephens Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Stephen GIles
Gnevance Officer
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
FOR THE EMPLOYER Mike Bnscoe
Staff RelatIOns Officer
Mimstry of Commumty Safety and
CorrectIOnal ServIces
HEARING June 2, 2005
2
DeCISIon
The partIes agreed to an ExpedIted MedIatIOn-ArbItratIOn Protocol for the Maplehurst
CorrectIOnal Complex. It IS not necessary to reproduce the entIre Protocol here Suffice It to say
that the partIes have agreed to an expedIted process whereIn each party provIdes the vIce-chair
wIth wntten submIssIOns, whIch Include the facts and authontIes the party Intends to rely upon,
one week pnor to the heanng. At the heanng, oral eVIdence IS not called, although the vIce-chair
IS permItted to request further InfOrmatIOn or documentatIOn. In addItIOn, If It becomes apparent
to eIther party or the vIce-chair that the Issues Involved In a partIcular case are of a complex or
sIgmficant nature, the case may be taken out of the expedIted process and processed through
"regular" arbItratIOn. Although IndIVIdual gnevors often wIsh to provIde oral eVIdence at
arbItratIOn, the process adopted by the partIes provIdes for a thorough canvaSSIng of the facts
pnor to the heanng, and leads to a fair and efficIent adJudIcatIOn process
The gnevors were all unclassIfied employees, who were converted to classIfied employees of the
publIc servIce as a result of a Memorandum of Settlement dated August 26 1998 The
memorandum contaIned a provIsIOn that all unclassIfied employees paid at the CO 1 level wIth at
least 1912 hours of servIce, would be reclassIfied as C02's In addItIOn, the agreement provIded
for the converSIOn of a number of unclassIfied correctIOnal officers The gnevors argue that the
converSIOn constItuted a promotIOn, and that the mImmum pay Increase provIsIOn In the
collectIve agreement should apply to them, retroactIve to the date of theIr converSIOn. The
employer responds that the mImmum pay Increase provIsIOn applIes to promotIOns only and IS
not tnggered by a converSIOn.
3
HavIng carefully revIewed the eVIdence presented and the submIssIOns of the partIes, and havIng
consIdered the context of the August 26 1998 Memorandum of Settlement, It IS my VIew that
there IS no eVIdence of a breach of the collectIve agreement. As a result, the gnevance IS
dIsmIssed.
Dated at Toronto thIS 1 st day of September 2005