HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-0707.Low.01-02-02 Decision
o NTARI 0 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 #0707/00
OPSEU#00B288
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano Pubhc ServIce Employees U mon
(Low)
Gnevor
- and -
The Crown m RIght of Ontano
(Mimsm of Fmance)
Employer
BEFORE Ken Petn'shen V Ice Chair
FOR THE Don MartIn
GRIEVOR Gnevance Officer
Ontano Pubhc ServIce Employees Umon
FOR THE Helen Ecker
EMPLOYER Labour RelatIOns Consultant
Mimsm of Fmance
HEARING Januan 24 2001
2
DECISION
In a gnevance dated June 20, 2000, Mr Rodger Low claims that the Employer
contravened the CollectIve Agreement when It placed hIm at step 1 of the Tax AudItor 4
senes, rather than at step 2 of that senes, subsequent to the executIOn of the current
CollectIve Agreement and a Letter of Understandmg deahng With certam classIficatIOn
adjustments, both of whIch were sIgned on June 25, 1999 Mr Low requests that he be
assIgned to step 2 of the TA4 senes as of Apnl 6, 1999, and that the appropnate pay
adjustments are made Mr Low s gnevance was dealt With at a proceedmg at HamIlton
on January 24, 2001
Between the start of the year 1999 and the executIOn of the current CollectIve
Agreement, Mr Low moved from an F02 to step 2 of the F04 pOSItIOn WIthm the
FmancIaI Officer senes The Letter of Understandmg made the new Tax AudItor senes
effectIve January 1, 1999 The Employer took the pOSItIOn that It was appropnate to
place Mr Low at step 1 of the TA4, rather than at step 2, haVIng regard to the effectIve
date agreed to by the partIes for the new Tax AudItor senes. Mr Low was gIven the
OppOrtunIty to explam to me hIS VIews on thIS Issue and why he beheved that the
Employer s conduct was unfair However, the Umon adVIsed me that It agreed With the
Employer s mterpretatIOn of the relevant CollectIve Agreement prOVISIon. The partIes
adVIsed me that there was no dIspute between them concernmg the mterpretatIOn of the
3
prOVISIons m the CollectIve Agreement and m the Letter of Understandmg whIch were
the basIS of Mr Low s gnevance.
The jUflsprudenc e of the GSB has recogmzed that It only has jUnSdIctIOn under
the CollectIve Agreement to deal With dIsputes between the partIes and that It IS the
Umon, not a gnevor, who decIdes whether a matter Will proceed to arbItratIOn. See, E.
Blake et al and Amalgamated Transit Union (GSB Nos 1276/87 et al ) (May 3,1988)
(ShIme) Smce the partIes adVIsed me that there IS no dIspute between them With respect
to Mr Low s gnevance, the GSB does not have the jUnSdIctIOn to deal With the
gnevance Accordmgly, Mr Low s gnevance dated June 20,2000, IS dIsmIssed.
Dated at Toronto, thIS 21d day of February, 2001
"
~
Ken Petryshen, Vice-Chair