Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-0360.Marles.84-03-12IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: Before: For the Griever: For the Employer: Hearing: OPSEU (James L. Marles) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation and Communications) Employer R. H. McLaren Vice Chairman T. Traves Member J. Morrow Member P. J. J. Cavalluzzo Counsel Cavalluzzo, Hayes & Lennon Barristers & Solicitors D. W. Brown, Q.C. Crown Law Office Civil Ministry of the Attorney General March 2, 1984 - 2 - DECISION On November 28, 1983, a panel of the Board issued a direction dealing with a dispute arising from the scheduling of a large number of grievances relating to the designation of "headquarters" for the purposes of Article 22 of the Collective Agreement. Pursuant to that Agreement, three panels of the Board were constituted to convene two days of hearings, each during January and early February, 1984. This panel is one of those three and axvened one of its daysof hearinys on January 31, 1984, hearing the . grievances of Messrs. Speedie and Jones. The second day of proceedings was convened on March 2, 1984, to hear the grievance of J.L. Marles. At the time of the commencement of the second day of hearings on March 2, 1984, the panel provided counsel to the parties with its award in connection with the two grievances heard on the 31st of January. As a result of that award, the counsel for the parties agreed to settle the grievance of Mr. Marles in accordance with the prior award of this panel of the Board dated March 2, 1984. Mr. Marles grieved that: "I grieve that M.T.C. 's use of a designated headquarters has no foundation in the Collective Agreement and is a method being used by management to circumvent the appropriate commuting articles of 'the Collective Agreement, thereby depriving me of remuneration for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in the course of fulfilling my job requirements in my capacity as a field employee. - 3- "I further grieve that the recent use of a "Designated Headquarters" is a departure from the established practice, and has caused me significant monetary loss and hardship," As a result of the parties' agreement through their counsel to be bound in this grievance by the prior award of this panel, it was unnecessary for the Board to hear evidence and deliberate upon the grievance. Pursuant to the counsel for the parties' agreement, this Board issues the same orders in respect to this grievance as it has done for the prior two grievances. Those orders are: (1) It is ordered that the matter be remitted to the parties to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions as set out in the manual, which requires a headquarter designation which would be equitable to both parties. That determination is to be dealt with in accordance with the principles set out by this panel in its award dated March 2, 1984. (2) Until the process described in (1) has been completed, the Grievor is to be placed in the position that he was in prior to the change in the administrative practice. This order will remain effective until a headquarter designation which is equitable to both parties has been achieved. (3) It is ordered that the Grievor be compensated for all monies lost as a result of the breach of the Collective Agreement by the Employer: -4 - Finally, the Board is retaining jurisdiction to determine the quantum of the monies which would be owing to the Grievors as a result of these orders as it did in its award.of March 2, 1984.. DATED at London, Ontario, this 12th day of March, 1984. R'. H. McLaren Vice Chairman T. Traves Member J. Morrow Member