GSB# 2004-1463, 2004-1473, 2004-1814, 2004-1985
UNION# 2003-0517-0069, 2004-0517-0055, 2004-0517-0061, 2004-0517-0078
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Beek et al.)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFORE
Ken Petryshen
Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
Stephen Lavender Barrister and Solicitor
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Simon Heath Counsel Ministry of Government Services
HEARING
July 6, 2006.
Decision
I have before me a number of grievances filed by Correctional Officers (“COs”). The grievors had been employed as COs previously by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (“the Ministry”), had been away from the Ministry for differing periods of time after their employment had been severed and were then rehired by the Ministry. They challenge in their grievances the Ministry’s decision concerning their rate of pay on re-hire. In applying its re-hire policy to the grievors, the Ministry placed them at the first level of pay of the CO2 classification or at a level less than the one they had when they left the Ministry. The Union alleges that other employees rehired by the Ministry were given a rate of pay at the top level of the CO2 classification, even though their circumstances were no different from those of the grievors. In essence, the Union alleges that this differential treatment of the grievors constitutes a contravention of the Collective Agreement. The Union requests that the grivors be placed at the top level of the CO2 classification and paid damages for their losses.
I entertained submissions from the parties on the issue of whether, assuming a violation of the Collective Agreement, the grievors would be entitled to an order directing the Ministry to pay them at the top level of the CO2 classification. Just prior to the hearing where these submissions were made, counsel for the Ministry indicated that the Ministry would take the position that the GSB did not have the jurisdiction to entertain these grievances. Counsel then advised that he would not pursue the jurisdictional issue at the hearing where the remedial issue was being addressed, but would want to deal with it at a subsequent time. After considering the submissions on the remedial issue, I have decided to reserve my decision on that matter and to hear the submissions of counsel on the jurisdictional issue. If the GSB does not have the jurisdiction to decide the grievances, the remedial issue obviously becomes academic.
Accordingly, I will reserve my decision on the remedial issue. This matter will be set down for hearing for the purpose of entertaining submissions on whether the GSB has jurisdiction to deal with these grievances. This matter is referred to the Registrar to set a date for hearing, after consulting with the parties.
Dated at Toronto, this 5th day of October, 2006.