GSB# 1998-0294
UNION# 1998-0234-0004 [98A435]
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Hohenadel)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFORE
Barry Stephens
Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
Stephen Giles
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Mike Briscoe
Staff Relations Officer
Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services
HEARING
June 2, 2005.
Decision
The parties agreed to an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol for the Maplehurst Correctional Complex. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol here. Suffice it to say that the parties have agreed to an expedited process wherein each party provides the vice-chair with written submissions, which include the facts and authorities the party intends to rely upon, one week prior to the hearing. At the hearing, oral evidence is not called, although the vice-chair is permitted to request further information or documentation. In addition, if it becomes apparent to either party, or the vice-chair, that the issues involved in a particular case are of a complex or significant nature, the case may be taken out of the expedited process and processed through “regular” arbitration. Although individual grievors often wish to provide oral evidence at arbitration, the process adopted by the parties provides for a thorough canvassing of the facts prior to the hearing, and leads to a fair and efficient adjudication process.
The grievor grieves with respect to “…compensation for work and responsibilities in my place of employment.” The union stated at the hearing that it had made attempts to contact the grievor by mail, and through the local's review of its records, in order to submit further particulars and information, but no such information was forthcoming. The union also advised the Board that the grievor is not currently employed by the Ministry.
Having carefully reviewed the evidence presented and the submissions of the parties, it is my view that there is no evidence of a breach of the collective agreement. The grievance appears to raise a question related to whether the grievor has been properly classified and, to that extent, this board has no jurisdiction and the matter should more properly be referred to the JSSC.
Dated at Toronto, this 29^th^ day of August, 2005.