Grievance Settlement Board
GSB #0707/00
OPSEU#00B288
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Low)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Finance)
Employer
BEFORE Ken Petryshen 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 January 24, 2001.
DECISION
In a grievance dated June 20, 2000, Mr. Rodger Low claims that the Employer contravened the Collective Agreement when it placed him at step 1 of the Tax Auditor 4 series, rather than at step 2 of that series, subsequent to the execution of the current Collective Agreement and a Letter of Understanding dealing with certain classification adjustments, both of which were signed on June 25, 1999. Mr. Low requests that he be assigned to step 2 of the TA4 series as of April 6, 1999, and that the appropriate pay adjustments are made. Mr. Low’s grievance was dealt with at a proceeding at Hamilton on January 24, 2001.
Between the start of the year 1999 and the execution of the current Collective Agreement, Mr. Low moved from an FO2 to step 2 of the FO4 position within the Financial Officer series. The Letter of Understanding made the new Tax Auditor series effective January 1, 1999. The Employer took the position that it was appropriate to place Mr. Low at step 1 of the TA4, rather than at step 2, having regard to the effective date agreed to by the parties for the new Tax Auditor series. Mr. Low was given the opportunity to explain to me his views on this issue and why he believed that the Employer’s conduct was unfair. However, the Union advised me that it agreed with the Employer’s interpretation of the relevant Collective Agreement provision. The parties advised me that there was no dispute between them concerning the interpretation of the provisions in the Collective Agreement and in the Letter of Understanding which were the basis of Mr. Low’s grievance.
The jurisprudence of the GSB has recognized that it only has jurisdiction under the Collective Agreement to deal with disputes between the parties and that it is the Union, not a grievor, who decides whether a matter will proceed to arbitration. See, E. Blake et al. and Amalgamated Transit Union (GSB Nos. 1276/87 et al.) (May 3,1988) (Shime). Since the parties advised me that there is no dispute between them with respect to Mr. Low’s grievance, the GSB does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the grievance. Accordingly, Mr. Low’s grievance dated June 20, 2000, is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of February, 2001.