HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-0170.Davis.82-02-25IX THE YATTER OF AN A?~ITPATION
Cider
T:XE CROW ":4?LOV?E S COLLECTIVE BARGhI??i>:G ACT
Before
TEIZ GRIYJANCE SETTLEMENT ?OARD
Between: OPSEU (MS. Darlene Davis) Grieve:
- And -
The Crom in Right of OntarLo
(Ministry of Comunity and
Social Services) 'sxploy2r
R. J; Roberts Vice Chair-an
E. R. O'Keliy Member
I. Thomson .Menber
For the Employer: 3. 9. Itenson ..-.
Senior Staff Relations Officer
Civil Service Ccrznission
For the zrievor:
Hearings:
J. Mike
Grievance/C :1
Oztaris i‘ub i
September 3
November 24, r 1931
:
This arbitration involves precisely the same basic issue
as was dealt withinourAward regarding the grievance of M. arecht
l~.
et al. In fact, the hearings in this and the Brecht case were,
by aqreement.between the parties, held before.the same Board
in a consecutive manner. At the end of the hearing in the _
present case, we determined that althouqh.we heard arqument
from then parties we.would not issue any award pending the
submission of evidence and argument in Brecht. Althouqh
Brecht was heard last, it was decided to issue a detailed
Award in that case, and follow it with the present Award.
In the present Award, we adopt and apply the same reasoning
regarding the inarbitrability of a claim of an employee to be
reclassified from.one Class Series to another, as we did in
Brecht. This being so, our conclusion must likewise be in
this case that the grievance is inarbitrable and is dismissed.
In the present case, the grievor claimed that'she was
>? <pFF :' :x&z entitled to be reclassified from her current classification
of Observation and Detention Home Xorker Level 3 (0. G-3. 3) to
Supervisor of Juveniles Level 3 -(S.O.J. 3). As with the qrievor
in the Brecht case, the grievor worked at the Syl Ab?s Centre
in Oakville, Ontario. Her position was that since her work
was not differentiated in any specific and essential duty from
the work of an S.O.J. 3 at the same Centre there was no reason-
able basis on which to deny her the more highly paid classifica-
tion of S.O.J. 3.
- 3 -
In th is regard, the Un ,ion introduced considerable evidence
to show that in the area of prime purpose, organization; duties in
appraising and training staff; program development, and other
core duties, the qrievor was doing essentially the same work
as an S.O.J. 3~at the Syl Apps Centre. As in the case of the
:$Y;:~, qrievor in theprecht Award, we were impressed by .this evidence
of similarity, and would have been moved by it to conclude that
there is little, ,if any, real difference between the work being
performed at this particular Centre by the qrievor and an S.O.J. 3
on the training school side.
However, for the same reasons as we cited in Brecht;-we
are constrained to hold that even in these circumstances we
do not have any authority to make the determination that the
Union has urged upon us. We are enjoined by the decision of
~~e~,the Ontario Court of Appeal in Re Metropolitan Toronto soard :: ;,,:
of Commissioners of Police and Metropolitan Toronto Police
Association (1981), 33 O.R. (2d) 476 (Ont. C.A.), to conclude
that we are without jurisdiction to review the reasonableness
of the exercise of an exclusive management right, &, to "determine
. . . classification of positions". Section 17(l) (a), Crown
Emplovees' Collective Bargaining Act, 1972 S.O. c~.57, as amended,
1974, 1978.
The grievance is dismissed.
DATED at London, Ontario this 25th day of February, 1982. .,^
R. J. Roberts Vice Chairman
-IT
E. R. O'Kelly Member
Member