GSB#1089/99
UNION# 99B883, 99B884
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Margel et al)
Grievor
-and-
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Finance)
Employer
BEFORE Barry B. Fisher Vice-Chair
FOR THE GRIEVOR Don Martin
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER Helen Ecker
Labour Relations Consultant
Ministry of Finance
HEARING April 24, 2001.
DECISION
These grievors (the Present Grievors) are concerned that as a result of a settlement of a previous competition grievance (the Original Grievance), they were denied the right to compete for a position. In the Original Grievance, OPSEU and the Ministry settled the case in part by placing the Original Grievors in the next vacancy that came up in that job category.
As a result of this settlement, the Present Grievors feel that they have been denied a chance to compete for this new vacancy as the Original Grievors were placed in the position without a competition.
The employer has made a motion to dismiss this case on the basis that there has been no violation of the collective agreement.
The union does not dispute that there has been no violation of the collective agreement.
According to Section 7 (3) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act R.S.O. 1993, c. 38, there must be a difference between the parties for this Board to have jurisdiction.
For all of the reasons expressed in Re The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Government Services) and Ontario Public Services Employees Union (Stewart), June 22, 1995) unreported (Briggs); and Re The Crown in Right of Ontario (Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority) and Amalgamated Transit Union (Blake) May 3, 1988) unreported (Shime), I have concluded that I do not have jurisdiction to hear and determine these grievances.
Accordingly, this grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 9th day of May, 2001.