HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-0464.James.11-10-25 DecisionCommission de
Crown Employees
Grievance
UqJOHPHQWGHVJULHIV
Settlement Board
GHVHPSOR\pVGHOD
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 7pO
Fax (416) 326-1396 7pOpF
GSB#1999-0464
UNION#1999-0719-0004
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(James)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFOREGerry Lee Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNIONEd Holmes
Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
FOR THE EMPLOYERBenjamin Parry
Ministry of Government Services
Labour Practice Group
Counsel
CONFERENCE CALL
September 22, 2011.
- 1 -
Decision
[1]This case was first resolved with my involvement more than ten years ago.
A claim by the Union and the Grievor that there was a breach of the initial
settlement resulted in a second Memorandum of Settlement dated January 5,
2011. The Grievor has now claimed that there has been a breach of the
second Memorandum of Settlement in which I remain seized. This matter
was dealt with by Counsel for the Union and the Employer via conference
call on September 22, 2011, in order for the matter to be dealt with
expeditiously.
[2] The Union and the Grievor claim that a Record of Employment (ROE) was
not sent to the Federal Government until August 2011 following the lump
sum payment that was made to the Grievor pursuant to the January 5, 2011,
Memorandum of Settlement. The Union claims that this delay negatively
LPSDFWHGWKH*ULHYRU¶VDELOLW\WRFROOect Employment Insurance Benefits and
that the Employer should compensate the Grievor for any losses incurred.
[3] Counsel for the Employer takes the position that there was no express or
implied term in the Memorandum of Settlement that required the Employer
to send a ROE within any specified time frame. As such, the Employer
claims that they have fully complied with all of the terms of the January 5,
2011, Memorandum of Settlement. Furthermore, the Employer pointed out
that during the negotiations leading to the January 5, 2011 settlement, the
Employer had specifically rejected the GrLHYRU¶VUHTXHVWWREHSDLGVDODU\
continuance as opposed to a lump sum payment in order to avoid any
Employment Insurance issues.
- 2 -
[4] Having carefully considered the submissions made by the Parties, I have
concluded that the January 5, 2011, Memorandum of Settlement document
contains no reference whatsoever to a Record of Employment. As such, the
delay in sending out the Record of Employment cannot constitute a breach
of settlement. Accordingly, the claim that there has been a breach of the
January 5, 2011, settlement is hereby dismissed.
th
Dated at Toronto this 25 day of October 2011.
Gerry Lee, Vice-Chair