Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-0013.Vukoje.77-01-07CROWN EMPLOYEES 416/964 6426 GRIEVANCE SETTLE$NT . B~ARO ., Suite $05,. 77 B~OOP Street iJest TOROiiTO, Chh.rk. M&S IM2 ‘: IN-THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION ,. Under,The. CROWN EMPLOYEE;e;SL,;ECTiVE BARGAINING ACT THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD . Between:.: Mrs: R. Vukoje And (The Grievor) Ontario Housing Corporation' 2. .'. (The Employer) Before: D..M. Beatty - Chairman f, Mary Gibb - Member S.R. Hennessy - Member Forthe Grievor "1. Mr. Maurice A. Green,,-Golden-Levinson Toronto, Ontario , i ?- For the Employer Mr., A. P. Tarasuk, Central'Ontario Industrial' /', ,Relations Institute, Toronto, Ontario Hearings ". I. Westbury Hotel, Toronto, February 27,~1976' Westbury Hotel, Toronto, June 3, 1976 Suite 405, 77 Bl'oor St. W.,.Toronto,~October 18, 1976 I’ - r. -2- SUPPLEMENTARY AWARD In the concluding paragraph of our initial award in Re: Vukoje 13/75 dated flovember 10, 1976, this Board wrote: %I the rem& m met hold that Mm. Vokoje ‘8 grievunoe mat mcaeed. Accordingly it is the comlu&m of thie Board that as of the specific date in ths Spring qf 1913 when she comenced to perform the a8azgnmep described on her duty Roeter. Mrs. Vukoje muet be cLassip:ed a8 and be paid the rate of a Cterk 3. In tFz mlikely evat the par%ies shouM have difficulQ implementing this award or detemtikng the precise compemation to ohich the griever is entitled aa a result of this award, we shall remzin eeised of thie mtter for thirty &ys fotkming upon the r.9kaSe of thicc am&“. Following the release of that award, on December 2, 1976, this Board received a letter from Mr. M. Green, Counsel for the grievor, advising that the parties were experiencing difficulties in implementing the terms of our award and requesting that this Board remain seised of the matter for a further period of sixty days. Subsequently on December 6, 1976, the parties met with the Board to discuss, inter alia. the matter of implementing the terms of our earlier award. In the result, and although the parties were ultimately able to resolve this issue to their mutual satisfaction, it became apparent to the Board, from the representations of both of the parties, that the directions we set forth in the concluding paragraph of our earlier award were in error. Accordingly and so.that other parties coming before this Board will not be misled by it, we would advise that it is not our intention to be guided in the future by the directions contained -3- in that paragraph. Rather, and unless there are extenuating or unusual circumstances we would advise that as a general principle in awarding compensation to a successful grievant, :. we would intend to adhere to the views we expressed in & ’ Onturio Pubtic Service Bnployees Union and the Ministry of the Attorney Cenemt 71/M, wherein we stated: wlik it is, in our view, clear that the@nployer failed to comply with the provisions of Article IO. 3 throughout the period from January 28, 1976 w&Z July 12, 1976, we ~CJ not believe that these employees who initiated their compluint only on May 25, 1976, may properZy cknh relief throughout that ,period. To the contrcrry, ond to hokl otherwise, would be to improperly peruilize the employer for the breach of m agreement of which it was not aware. Thus, where aa here, the breach of the agreement is in the nature of a continuing one, boards of arbitration have consistently .Zimited an emp Zoyee ‘8 right to ckim damages for the breach~of the agreement to the period of time within which it was pemkible to file his &m.mce. Re: Union Gzw~CO. of C& Ltd. 119721, 2 L.A.C. (2d) 45 IWwmRe: Automatic Screw Machine Products Ltd. (19721, 23 L.A.C. 396 (Johnstonl. Re: National Auto Radiative Manufacturing Co. (19671, 18 L.A.C. 326 (Palmer)“. Dated at Toronto 7th day of January 1977. (. ..’ -+. I - D M Beatty Chaitkan . bb Member ,I Cons 3 R. Hennessy Mknber