GSB#2006-1918

UNION#2006-0310-0017

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Magee)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Natural Resources)

Employer

BEFORE

Nimal Dissanayake

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

John Brewin Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Barristers & Solicitors

FOR THE EMPLOYER

George Parris Ministry of Government Services Counsel

HEARING

October 21, 2009 and March 12, 2010.

Decision

1The Union claims that the employer had contravened the Board’s direction in its decision dated May 20, 2008 and the Minutes of Settlement executed by the parties subsequently on March 20, 2009, by failing to restore the grievor to full duties of a conservation officer.

2When the hearing was convened to deal with this issue, it was apparent that there were a number of issues between the parties arising from the union’s claim. Following opening statements on March 12, 2010, it was agreed that the Board ought to initially determine an issue between the parties described as a “jurisdictional issue”. The parties also agreed that the Board should issue a brief decision on that issue, with reasons to follow.

3The “jurisdictional issue” is as follows. In the award dated May 20, 2008 I directed the employer inter alia, “to forthwith restore him (the grievor) to full duties of a CO”, and retained jurisdiction with respect to all outstanding matters that arise from the grievance. The union alleges that to date the employer has not complied with that direction. In the alternative, the union alleges that the employer has breached the settlement dated March 20, 2009 by failing to return the grievor to full duties of a conservation officer.

4The employer’s position is that the remedy directed in the Board decision of May 20, 2008, is no longer enforceable because it has been supplanted and overridden by the Minutes of Settlement dated March 20, 2009, and that the grievor’s entitlement is now solely governed by those minutes. The employer submits that the terms of those minutes do not include an obligation to restore the grievor to full duties of a conservation officer.

5Having considered the submissions of the parties, I agree that it was open to the parties by agreement to amend or substitute the Board’s direction that the grievor be restored to full duties of a conservation officer. However, I find, based on all of the evidence tendered, that the parties did not do so in the Minutes of Settlement. Rather, those minutes represent the parties’ agreement as to the terms and conditions under which the Board’s direction to return the grievor to full duties should be implemented.

6Therefore, the Board’s direction continues to be in effect, subject to the terms set out in the Minutes of Settlement.

7Reasons for this preliminary decision will follow. The hearing will continue on March 19, 2010 to deal with all outstanding issues relating to the implementation of the Board’s direction.