HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-0147.Lasani.87-05-15IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EPfPLOYBES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before,
THE GRIEVANCE SETTtEMENT BOARD
BEFORE:
OpSEU (Aquil Lasani)
-and-, Griever
THE CROWN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO
(MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES)
R. .I. Delisle
I. .I. Thomson
H. Roberts
Vice-Chairman
Member
Member
FOR THE GRIEVOR: A. Ryder
Counsel
Gowling b Henderson
FOR THE EMPLOYER: A. W. HcChesney
Counsel
Management Board of Cabinet
Employer
HEARING DATES: April 1, 1987
7, . - .>
’
/
DECISION
The grievor complains that he was not properly
considered for a Developmental Opportunity (1 year) for the
position of Rehabilitation and Employment Supervisor (Social Work
P.M. - 17). The employer gave notice in advance of the hearing
that it would be objecting to the jurisdiction of the Grievance
Settlement Board to arbitrate the grievance. The employer agrues
that the position sought by the grievor is a managerial position
and as such excluded by the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining
Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 108, s. l(f) (iii).~ Dorothy Cameron,
Compensation and Staffing Advisor in the Human Resources Branch
.~ of the Ministry of Community and Social Services testified.
Cameron identified Exhibit 2, the Position Evaluation for the
sought after position. That document allocates the position to
be management and so covered by the.Management Compensation Plan.
Counsel for the grievor sought to cross-examine Cameron
with respect to the standards for the position and counsel for
i the Ministry objected that this was' irrelevant. Counsel for the
grievor sought leave to cross-examine with the expectation that
he might be able to convince us that, notwithstanding Exh'libit 2,
the position is in truth a bargaining unit position. We.decided
that while one could argue that we might have the authority to
decide this issue, see Re C.I.L. and Allied, [1972] 3 O.R.
63(C.A.), such a matter should be reserved for the Labour
Relations Tribunal. In OPSEU (D.W. Cannins. et al) and
2
Crown/Ontario (Ministry of Government Services, unreported, April
17, 1986 (Ont. Div. Ct.), Saunders, J. writes:
In the Ontario Public Service, there is a distinction between bargaining unit employees and non-barga.ining unit employees. The distinction is sometimes referred to as a question of status. An unresolved dispute with respect to the status of a particular employee is determined by the Labour
Relations Tribunal established under the Act. Status is separate and apart from classification. The Board has jurisdiction to consider * lob classification but not status.
Accordingly we adjourn this matter sine die to allow
the parties to proceed to the Tribunal to resolve the disput~e.
Dated at Kingston, this 15th day of May, 1987.
I. J. Thomson, Member
"-gT+
U
H. Roberts, Member