Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-3582.McLaughlin.07-02-01 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# 2005-3582 UNION# 2006-0368-0005 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 (McLaughlin) - 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 Karen Martin Staff Relations Officer Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services December 14, 2006. January 17,2007. 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 hired as an Nurse 2 in May 2002. In the summer of 2005, the grievor and another employee found out about the salary note in the collective agreement which entitles nurses with a university degree to a premium. Both employees applied for the premium. The other employee received his premium fully retroactive to his date of hire, while the grievor's was only made effective from July 2005. The employer states that the other employee was given the premium because he had provided evidence of his university degree at the time he was hired, and the failure to pay the premium had been an error. However, the employer states that the grievor did not provide evidence of her degree at the time she was hired. The employer argues that there was no error, and the grievor was not eligible for the premium until she actually provided evidence of her degree in 2005. The 3 employer also asserts that the grievor is assumed in law to be aware of her collective agreement rights, and that her failure to assert such rights immediately restricts the remedy available to her. The grievor responds that she could not provide a copy of her degree at the time of hiring because she had just completed the program. She states that she discussed her degree during her hiring interview, and her supervisor was well aware that she had successfully completed the university program. Moreover, she states that the employer did not ask to see evidence of her degree at any time. The retroactivity amounts to approximately $3200.00 DECISION The employer is ordered to pay the grievor the sum of $2500.00, less deductions. I will remain seized to deal with any issues arising from the implementation of this award. Dated at Toronto, this 1st day of February, 2007.