Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-3567.Beausoleil.06-05-23 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# 2005-3567 UNION# 2006-0517-0002 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (BeausoleIl ) Union - and - The Crown In RIght of Ontano (Mimstry ofCommumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer BEFORE Barry Stephens Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION Scott Andrews Gnevance Officer Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon FOR THE EMPLOYER Faith Crocker Staff RelatIOns Officer Mimstry of Commumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces HEARING May 17 2006 2 DeCISIon The partIes have agreed to an ExpedIted MedIatIOn-ArbItratIOn Protocol It IS not necessary to reproduce the entIre Protocol here Suffice It to say that the partIes have agreed to an "True MedIatIOn-ArbItratIOn" process, whereIn each provIdes the vIce-chair wIth submIssIOns, whIch Include the facts and authontIes each relIes upon. The process adopted by the partIes provIdes for a canvaSSIng of the facts dunng the medIatIOn phase, although the vIce-chair has the dIscretIOn to request further InformatIOn or documentatIOn. ArbItratIOn decIsIOns are Issued In accordance wIth artIcle 22 16 of the collectIve agreement, wIthout reasons, and are wIthout preJudIce or precedent. The gnevance In thIS case relates to Rosell BeausoleIl Ms BeausoleIl was a former employee of the OPS workIng at the Barne JaIl from 1999 untIl It was decommIssIOned In 2001 When she left the Barne JaIl, she had reached level 2 on the pay gnd. She then took a Job wIth at CNCC whIch was at the tIme pnvately managed, and not part of the OPS In 2003 Ms BeausoleIl applIed to MWDC and was offered a posItIOn, startIng a pay level 3 She gneves two aspects of her re-hIre First, she states that other employees were hIred at MWDC from CNCC at the same tIme as her and, although they had no pnor OPS expenence, they stated at level 3 Second, she states that she was reqUIred to complete a medIcal eXamInatIOn and engage In an applIcatIOn process, whIle others, even others from outsIde the OPS were "hIred over the phone" She seeks a further two year Increase to her wages, to level 5 The employer responds that Ms BeausoleIl was rehIred accordIng to ItS polIcy whIch may reqUIre a new medIcal for returmng employees, dependIng on the length of tIme they have been outsIde the OPS It provIded documentatIOn for all employees hIred by the mImstry dunng the 3 penod In questIOn, whIch IndIcated that all employees were reqUIred to provIde an recent medIcal The employer also states that, as Ms BeausoleIl had severed her employment In 2001 It was under no oblIgatIOn to offer her any advanced standIng on the wage scale After reVIeWIng the submIssIOns of the partIes and the collectIve agreement, It IS my conclusIOn that the gnevance should be dIsmIssed. Dated at Toronto thIS 23rd day of May 2006 <