HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-3939.McDonald.07-01-29 Decision
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas Sl. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
reglement des griefs
des employes de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. : (416) 326-1388
Telec. : (416) 326-1396
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
Nj
~
Ontario
GSB# 2005-3939
UNION# 2006-0517-0004
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
BETWEEN
BEFORE
FOR THE UNION
FOR THE EMPLOYER
HEARING
DEADLINE FOR
WRITTEN
SUBMISSIONS
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(McDonald)
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Barry Stephens
Scott Andrews
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Faith Crocker
Staff Relations Officer
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
November 23, 2006.
January 12,2007.
Union
Employer
Vice-Chair
2
Decision
INTRODUCTION
The parties have agreed to a Med-Arb Protocol, signed February 27, 2006. It is not necessary to
reproduce the entire Protocol here. Suffice it to say that, as part of the Protocol, the parties have
agreed to a "True Mediation-Arbitration" process, wherein each provides the vice-chair with
submissions, which include the facts and authorities each relies upon. The process adopted by
the parties provides for a canvassing of the facts during the mediation phase under the Protocol.
Arbitration decisions are issued in accordance with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement,
without reasons, and are without prejudice or precedent. The parties were unable to resolve this
matter in mediation.
Accordingly, the matter has been referred to me as a True
Mediation/Arbitration decision under the Protocol.
FACTS
The grievor was laterally transferred to the C02 position, as a result of being surplussed in his
former position as Recreational Officer. On November 22, 2004 the parties agreed to red-circle
the grievor's Recreational Officer rate as follows:
The Employer agrees to maintain the grievor's salary at the maximum of the Recreational Officer
2 level for six (6) months effective November 22,2004.
At the time of the agreement, the Recreational Officer 2 rate was higher than the C02 rate.
However, the new collective agreement that became effective on January 1, 2005 contained an
adjustment to the C02 rate, such that the C02 rate came to exceed the Recreational Officer rate
by approximately 9 cents per hour. On January 1, 2005, the grievor was maintained at the 2004
Recreational Officer rate. The grievance seeks that the grievor be paid at the appropriate C02
rate, effective January 1,2005.
3
The employer takes the position that the grievor should have received an adjustment on January
1, 2005 to the 2005 rate for the Recreational Officer 2 position. However, the employer also
maintains that the 9 cents per hour difference is not payable, given the clear terms of the
November 22, 2004 agreement between the parties. The union argues that the November 22,
2004 agreement has now been surpassed by the terms of the new collective agreement. The
parties provided red-circling protection in November 2004 for a period of six months, but such
"protection" must end as soon as the collective agreement rate for the job the grievor was
performing, i.e. the C02 position, passed the Recreational Officer 2 rate. Thus, the union asserts
the grievor was entitled to the C02 rate effective January 1,2005.
DECISION
After careful consideration of the facts and the submissions of the parties, it is my conclusion
that the grievance should be upheld. The grievor is entitled to the applicable C02 rate effective
January 1, 2005, and he is entitled to full compensation. I will remain seized to deal with any
issues arising from the implementation of this decision.
Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of January, 2007.
Barry