GSB# 1999-0615, 1999-1761, 2000-0088, 2000-0154, 2000-0155, 2000-0201, 2000-0250, 2000-0317, 2000-0395, 2000-0453, 2000-0569, 2000-0616, 2000-0700, 2000-0708, 2000-0709, 2000-0851, 2000-1209, 2000-1532, 2001-0506, 2001-0669, 2004-0599, 2005-1597
UNION# 1999-0526-0005, 1999-0526-0012, 2000-0526-0003, 2000-0526-0007, 2000-0526-0014, 2000-0526-0024, 2000-0526-0022, 2000-0526-0025, 2000-0526-0029, 2000-0526-0030, 2000-0526-0034, 2000-0526-0035, 2000-0526-0040, 2000-0526-0038, 2000-0526-0039, 2000-0526-0052, 2000-0526-0053, 2000-0526-0063, 2001-0526-0008, 2001-0526-0015, 2004-0526-0011, 2005-0526-0038
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (McGann et al.)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Attorney General)
Employer
BEFORE
Daniel Harris
Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
Stacey Zafiriadis Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Len Hatzis Counsel Ministry of Government Services
HEARING
February 2, 2006.
Decision
This is another decision dealing with a backlog of grievances filed by Dag McGann and other court services employees. A complete list of the grievances is attached as Appendix “A”.
Grievances 1 – 5 were settled. Grievances 6 – 17 were dealt with in a decision dated January 18, 2001 (McGann No. l). Following that decision the parties agreed upon an expedited procedure for dealing with the remaining grievances. That agreement was set out in an Order of the Board dated July 8, 2002 (McGann #2). Pursuant to that agreement, George Richards, OPSEU Staff Representative, provided particulars of grievances 36, 38 and 39 to the employer. As a result of certain alleged failures to follow the agreed upon procedure, the parties agreed upon refinements to the procedure. That agreement was reached on December 11, 2002 and is attached as Appendix “B”.
As can be seen from Appendix “B”, Mr. Richards went to considerable effort to analyze and catalogue the grievances by the issues they raised, in order to permit the Board to deal with each issue and thereby permit the parties to map the Board’s decision into the various grievances. This was a very helpful service to the union, the grievor and the Board which was presented with Mr. Richards’s characteristic aplomb and good humour.
Pursuant to the agreement at Appendix “B”, Mr. Richards provided particulars dated May 30, 2003. Mr. Hatzis, for the employer, responded by correspondence dated July 3, 2003. Mr. Richards replied on July 17, 2003.
On February 14, 2004, the Board issued a decision dealing with grievances #36, 38 and 39 (McGann #3).
The remaining matters reconvened on February 6, 2006. On that day the Board heard the submissions of the parties and made the following determinations:
New Matters:
No. 46 - was referred to the Joint System Subcommittee (JSSC) on consent;
No. 47, 48 & 51 - the employer’s application to consolidate these new grievances was adjourned to the completion of these matters in order to assess the extent to which the issues raised therein are covered by the instant proceedings;
No. 49 & 50 - on consent, consolidated with these matters and to be dealt with as a fifth topic.
Existing Matters:
No. 23 - withdrawn on consent;
No. 26 - dismissed;
No. 27 - dismissed as against Mr. McGann. The union will seek instructions from the other grievors;
No. 29 - dismissed;
No. 30 - dismissed;
No. 31 - dismissed as against Mr. McGann. The union will seek instructions from the grievors;
. No. 32 & 33 - were previously settled.
The matters above that were dismissed were disposed of in accordance with the following paragraph included in Appendix “B”:
The union has advised the grievor that it will not make submissions on issues where there is no dispute between the parties. We have explained to the grievor that the arbitrator will not have jurisdiction to deal with a matter where there is no dispute, but we will not object if he wishes to address the Board on those issues.
The remaining matters are to be re-listed for hearing. The parties have been advised that the Board will deal with them on a pre-emptory basis. That is, they will proceed on the dates scheduled. If either party is not prepared to proceed, the grievances will be allowed or dismissed in accordance with the party in default.
Dated at Toronto this 3rd day of April 2006.