Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-0270.Myers.03-09-17 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# 0270/03,0303/03 UNION# 2003-0526-0009 2003-0526-0010 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (Myers) Grievor - and - The Crown In RIght of Ontano (Mimstry of the Attorney General) Employer BEFORE RandI H. Abramsky Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION Mark Barclay Gnevance Officer Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon FOR THE EMPLOYER Randy Holloway Human Resources Consultant Mimstry of the Attorney General HEARING September 8 2003 2 AWARD On March 13 2003 the gnevor Paul Myers, filed two gnevances The gnevor's complaInt before the Board centres on the fact that he was demed umon representatIOn at a meetIng held wIth hIS supervIsor At Issue, therefore IS whether an employee upon request, has the nght to umon representatIOn when meetIng wIth management. Facts On eIther February 26 or 28 2003 Manager of Court OperatIOns, Data Entry Jamce DeHart asked the gnevor to meet wIth her She dId not explaIn the purpose of the meetIng to hIm at the tIme, sInce he works In an open area. The gnevor accompamed her to her office The purpose of the meetIng was to dISCUSS the gnevor's late arnval at work. The partIes' agreed that thIS was not a dIscIplInary meetIng, that no dIscIplIne was contemplated and that no dIscIplIne took place as a result of the matter dIscussed at thIS meetIng. The gnevor explaIned that he requested a umon steward be present dunng the meetIng because the meetIng followed a day of heanng before the Gnevance Settlement Board. That heanng Involved a group health and safety gnevance agaInst the manager He gnevor stated that he was concerned about possIble retalIatIOn. Ms DeHart demed the gnevor's request for a umon steward. The collectIve agreement contaInS two provIsIOns regardIng umon representatIOn at meetIngs wIth management. One IS ArtIcle 22 5 whIch provIdes, as part of the gnevance procedure "The employee at hIS or her optIOn, may be accompamed and represented by a 3 Umon representatIve at Stage Two of the gnevance procedure" The other IS ArtIcle 44 13 whIch provIdes for umon representatIOn dunng Attendance ReVIew MeetIngs Positions of the Parties For the Union The Umon asserts that the gnevor's request for a umon representatIve dunng hIS meetIng wIth management should not have been unreasonably demed. It contends that the fact that the collectIve agreement provIdes for umon representatIOn In two specIfic Instances does not preclude the nght anSIng In other sItuatIOns It asserts that whIle management may have the nght to meet wIth ItS employees, It cannot unreasonably deny the employee the opportumty to have a umon steward present, If he or she so requests For the Employer The Employer asserts that there IS no nght under the collectIve agreement to umon representatIOn, other than as specIfied In ArtIcles 225 and 44 13 It submIts that the nght to umon representatIOn should not be expanded by thIS Board In arbItratIOn The Employer further submIts that there IS no statutory nght to umon representatIOn In the CIrcumstances of thIS case and that to allow one would result In chaos In the workplace In support of ItS posItIOn, the Employer cItes to OPSEU (Zarolia) and MinistlY of Health and Long-Term Care (2003) GSB No 1636/01 (Mikus) and OPSEU (Liouba Tanevsky) and MinistlY of Consumer & Commercial Relations) (1989) GSB No 0783/88 (DIssanayake) 4 Decision There IS no general nght under the collectIve agreement or the Labour Relations Act to umon representatIOn when an employee meets wIth management to dISCUSS a work-related Issue The two entItlements contaIned In the partIes' collectIve agreement regardIng umon representatIOn are not applIcable to the meetIng whIch took place In thIS case The February meetIng was not a Stage 2 meetIng, nor an Attendance ReVIew MeetIng. In my VIew It would be Improper to expand the nght to umon representatIOn In thIS proceedIng. OPSEU (Zarolia) and Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care supra To do so would not only Improperly expand the nght to umon representatIOn beyond the partIes' bargaIn, but It would also create an unworkable sItuatIOn for management. If an employee had the nght to umon representatIOn any tIme hIS or her supervIsor requested a meetIng, It would be chaotIc and dIsruptIve to the efficIent operatIOn of the publIc servIce Management has the nght to meet wIth ItS employees to dISCUSS work-related matters There IS no correspondIng general nght to umon representatIOn. Further even though the Employer acknowledged that there IS a practIce to allow umon representatIOn when the meetIng may lead to dIscIplIne, the partIes' agreed that the meetIng was not a dIscIplInary meetIng and dId not lead to dIscIplIne In OPSEU (Liouba Tanevsky) and Ministry of Consumer & Commercial Relations supra, the Board held that there was no nght to umon representatIOn even for a meetIng dunng whIch a senous allegatIOn was to be dIscussed whIch could have (and dId) lead to the gnevor's dIscharge The Board held at p 9 "The gnevor has been unable to pOInt to any legal nght, under the collectIve agreement or any legIslatIOn, to umon representatIOn at a meetIng as that held on August 3 1988" Although the Human Resources manager had recommended that the meetIng take place In the presence of a 5 umon steward, the Board noted that "he dId so not wIth any legal oblIgatIOn In mInd, but as a matter of common sense" In thIS case, however the meetIng was non-dIscIplInary and no nght to umon representatIOn would attach. AccordIngly under the facts of thIS case, I conclude that the manager's demal of the gnevor's request for umon representatIOn dId not vIOlate the collectIve agreement. The gnevances must therefore be dIsmIssed. Issued at Toronto thIS 17th day of September 2003 1-1. 1.hruf{[j Ranch H. Abramsky Vice-Chair