HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-1463.Beek et al.06-10-05 Decision
Commission de
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
règlement des griefs
Board
des employés de la
Couronne
Suite 600 Bureau 600
180 Dundas St. West 180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396 Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2004-1463, 2004-1473, 2004-1814, 2004-1985
UNION# 2003-0517-0069, 2004-0517-0055, 2004-0517-0061, 2004-0517-0078
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Beek et al.)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFORE Vice-Chair
Ken Petryshen
FOR THE UNION Stephen Lavender
Barrister and Solicitor
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Simon Heath
Counsel
Ministry of Government Services
HEARING
July 6, 2006.
2
Decision
I have before me a number of grievances filed by Correctional O fficers (?COs?). The
grievors had been employed as COs previously by the Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services (?the Minist ry?), had been away from the Mi nistry for differing periods of
time after their employment had b een severed and were then rehired by the Ministry. They
challenge in their grievances the Ministry?s deci sion concerning their rate of pay on re-hire. In
applying its re-hire policy to the gr ievors, the Ministry placed them at the first level of pay of the
CO2 classification or at a level less than the one they had when they left the Ministry. The
Union alleges that other employees rehired by the Ministry were given a rate of pay at the top
level of the CO2 classification, even though their circumstances we re no different from those of
the grievors. In essence, the Union alleges that this different ial treatment of the grievors
constitutes a contravention of the Collective Agreement. The Uni on requests that the grivors be
placed at the top level of the CO2 classifi cation and paid damages for their losses.
I entertained submissions from the parties on the issue of whether, assuming a violation
of the Collective Agreement, the grievors would be entitled to an order directing the Ministry to
pay them at the top level of the CO2 classifi cation. Just prior to the hearing where these
submissions were made, counsel for the Ministry indicated that the Ministry would take the
position that the GSB did not have the jurisdiction to entertain these grievances. Counsel then
advised that he would not pursue the jurisdictional issue at the h earing where the remedial issue
was being addressed, but would want to deal with it at a subsequent time. After considering the
submissions on the remedial issue, I have decided to reserve my decision on that matter and to
3
hear the submissions of counsel on the jurisdic tional issue. If the GSB does not have the
jurisdiction to decide the grievances, the remedial issue obviously becomes academic.
Accordingly, I will reserve my decision on th e remedial issue. This matter will be set
down for hearing for the purpose of entertaining submissions on whether the GSB has
jurisdiction to deal with these grie vances. This matter is referred to the Registrar to set a date for
hearing, after consulting with the parties.
th
Dated at Toronto, this 5 day of October, 2006.
Ken Petryshen ? Vice-Chair