HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-2848.Kader.09-07-21 Decision
Commission de
Crown Employees
Grievance
règlement des griefs
Settlement 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#2008-2848
UNION#2008-0329-0022
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Kader)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care)
Employer
BEFOREVice-Chair
Nimal Dissanayake
FOR THE UNION
Don Martin
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Kylie Humphreys and Stephanie Floras
Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
Employee Relations Consultants
HEARING
July 16, 2009.
- 2 -
Decision
[1]The grievor, Ms. Cynthia Kader was hired into the unclassified staff as a part-time Food
Service Associate. Her most recent contract was from March 24, 2008 to September 21,
2008.
[2] By letter dated May 28, 2008 the employer provided Ms. Kader with sixteen weeks of
notice under
the Employment Standards Act, and confirmed that her last day of
employment would be September 21, 2008.
[3] On August 29, 2008, Ms. Kader grieved, alleging that ?the employer has violated article
2 and article 3 of the collective agreement and any other applicable articles or legislation
that applies?.
[4] The grievance was scheduled for mediation/arbitration before me pursuant to article
22.16. The parties advised that there was no prospect of a settlement through mediation,
and jointly requested that I receive the uncontested facts and the respective positions of
the parties, and issue a decision. The facts were presented by counsel by way of opening
statements, and relevant material was filed.
[5] Having considered the respective positions of the parties, I find no merit in the
grievance. While a violation of article 2 is alleged, there is no assertion that the
employer?s exercise of its management right to not renew Ms. Kader?s unclassified
contract, in any way adversely affected any right she had under the collective agreement,
except for article 3.
[6] While Ms. Kader has alleged discrimination in violation of article 3 and the Ontario
Human Rights Code, there is no evidence suggesting that there was any discrimination
on the basis of a prohibited ground. All I am left with is her assertion that the fact that
she is ?a 23 year old female who is in an unclassified position with limited means of
grieving dismissal? is a possible reason for the discrimination.
- 3 -
[7] On the contrary, the employer has provided evidence supporting its position that its
decision to not renew Ms. Kader?s contract was based on operational requirements. It
has provided evidence substantiating that due to the return of four employees from
maternity leave, and one from a parental leave, there was no on-going need for Ms.
Kader?s services.
[8] In the circumstances, no violation has been established, and the grievance is hereby
dismissed.
st
Dated at Toronto this 21 day of July 2009.
Nimal Dissanayake, Vice-Chair