HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-1250.Pierobon.07-05-09 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# 2006-1250
UNION# 2006-0618-0014
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Pierobon)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Children and Youth Services)
Employer
BEFOREVice-Chair
Barry Stephens
FOR THE UNION
Stephen Giles and Gregg Gray
Grievance Officers
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER Nicholas Sapp and Pauline Barr
Employee Relations Advisors
Ministry of Children and Youth Services
HEARING May 4, 2007
DEADLINE FOR May 8, 2007.
WRITTEN
SUBMISSIONS
2
Decision
INTRODUCTION
The parties held a mediation/arbitration session from May 2 to 4, 2007. The process adopted by
the parties provided for a canvassing of the facts during the mediation phase. In some cases,
where a mediated settlement could not be reached, the parties mutually agreed that arbitration
decisions would be issued in accordance with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement, without
reasons, and without prejudice or precedent. The parties were unable to resolve this matter in
mediation. Accordingly, the matter has been referred to me for a decision.
FACTS
Derek Pierobon is an unclassified YSO. He grieves that the employer has improperly denied him
a ?roll-over? to classified status.
In July 2006 the parties were in the process of ?rolling-over? seven unclassified employees at
Cecil Facer to classified status. At first, it appeared that Mr. Pierobon would be the seventh
employee on the list. However, it was subsequently discovered that another employee had been
on leave for a workplace injury, and had actually accumulated sufficient credits to qualify for the
?roll-over? ahead of Mr. Pierobon. The grievor was advised that he did not make the list.
Understandably, Mr. Pierobon was disappointed with this outcome. He grieves that the parties
improperly applied the ?roll-over? agreement to his case. The employer responds that the ?roll-
over? process was jointly administered at the MERC level, according to jointly agreed terms and
conditions.
3
DECISION
The grievance is dismissed.
th
Dated at Toronto, this 9 day of May, 2007.
Barry Stephens, Vice-Chair