HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-1918.Magee.10-03-17 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#2006-1918
UNION#2006-0310-0017
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Magee)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Natural Resources)
Employer
BEFOREVice-Chair
Nimal Dissanayake
FOR THE UNION
John Brewin
Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE EMPLOYER
George Parris
Ministry of Government Services
Counsel
HEARING
October 21, 2009 and March 12, 2010.
- 2 -
Decision
[1]The Union claims that the employer had contravened the Board?s direction in its decision
dated May 20, 2008 and the Minutes of Settlement executed by the parties subsequently
on March 20, 2009, by failing to restore the grievor to full duties of a conservation
officer.
[2] When the hearing was convened to deal with this issue, it was apparent that there were a
number of issues between the parties arising from the union?s claim. Following opening
statements on March 12, 2010, it was agreed that the Board ought to initially determine
an issue between the parties described as a ?jurisdictional issue?. The parties also agreed
that the Board should issue a brief decision on that issue, with reasons to follow.
[3] The ?jurisdictional issue? is as follows. In the award dated May 20, 2008 I directed the
employer inter alia, ?to forthwith restore him (the grievor) to full duties of a CO?, and
retained jurisdiction with respect to all outstanding matters that arise from the grievance.
The union alleges that to date the employer has not complied with that direction. In the
alternative, the union alleges that the employer has breached the settlement dated March
20, 2009 by failing to return the grievor to full duties of a conservation officer.
[4] The employer?s position is that the remedy directed in the Board decision of May 20,
2008, is no longer enforceable because it has been supplanted and overridden by the
Minutes of Settlement dated March 20, 2009, and that the grievor?s entitlement is now
solely governed by those minutes. The employer submits that the terms of those minutes
do not include an obligation to restore the grievor to full duties of a conservation officer.
[5] Having considered the submissions of the parties, I agree that it was open to the parties
by agreement to amend or substitute the Board?s direction that the grievor be restored to
full duties of a conservation officer. However, I find, based on all of the evidence
tendered, that the parties did not do so in the Minutes of Settlement. Rather, those
minutes represent the parties? agreement as to the terms and conditions under which the
Board?s direction to return the grievor to full duties should be implemented.
- 3 -
[6] Therefore, the Board?s direction continues to be in effect, subject to the terms set out in
the Minutes of Settlement.
[7] Reasons for this preliminary decision will follow. The hearing will continue on March
19, 2010 to deal with all outstanding issues relating to the implementation of the Board?s
direction.
th
Dated at Toronto this 17 day of March 2010.
Nimal Dissanayake, Vice-Chair