HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-1131.Matwey et al.06-02-01 Decision
Crown Employees Commission de Nj
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# 2003-1131
UNION# 2003-0234-0168
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Matwey et al ) Union
- and -
The Crown In RIght of Ontano
(Mimstry ofCommumty 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 Rena Khan
Staff RelatIOns Officer
Mimstry of Commumty Safety and
CorrectIOnal ServIces
HEARING November 9 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 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 are all Nurse 2's TheIr gnevance relates to the competItIOn for fillIng of three
Nurse 3 posItIOns at the InstItutIOn. The gnevors advance the somewhat unusual proposItIOn that
the three posItIOns should not have been filled wIth an Internal candIdate as thIS would only
exacerbate conflIcts that eXIsted In the department pnor to the fillIng of the posItIOns Although
none of the gnevors applIed for the posItIOns In questIOn, they gneve that the job competItIOn
was not run In a fair and eqUItable manner There was no specIfic allegatIOn as to how the
competItIOn breached the collectIve agreement, nor IS there any eVIdence of bad faith on the part
of the employer Employer counsel submItted that the job competItIOns were consIstent WIth the
3
reqUIrements of the collectIve agreement, and also asserted that, SInce none of the gnevors had
actually applIed for the jobs In questIOn, they had no standIng to challenge the outcome
After reVIeWIng the submIssIOns of the partIes and the collectIve agreement, It IS my VIew that
there IS no eVIdence to support the conclusIOn that the job competItIOns In questIOns were
processed In a manner InCOnsIstent WIth the terms of the collectIve agreement. As a result the
gnevance IS dIsmIssed.
Dated at Toronto thIS 1st day ofPebruary 2006