Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Lee et al) v. The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Attorney General), 2010 CanLII 68785

GSB#2009-2267, 2009-2268, 2009-2269, 2009-2270, 2009-2271, 2009-2272, 2009-2273, 2009-2274, 2009-2275, 2009-2276

UNION#2009-0154-0020, 2009-0154-0021, 2009-0154-0022, 2009-0154-0023, 2009-0154-0024, 2009-0154-0025, 2009-0154-0026, 2009-0154-0027, 2009-0154-0028, 2009-0154-0029

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Lee et al)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Attorney General)

Employer

BEFORE

M.V. Watters Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Stephen Giles Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Suneel Bahal Ministry of Government Services Legal Services Branch Counsel

HEARING

October 13, 2010.

Decision

1This proceeding was conducted pursuant to the Mediation-Arbitration Procedure set out in article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement.

2In or about July 2009, the Employer temporarily assigned an employee working as a Trial Coordinator, at the OAG 11 level, to a Client Services Representative position. This latter position was classified as an OAG 8. As there was work reasonably available to this employee in the Trial Coordinator position, the Employer was obliged under article 8.3 to continue her salary at the higher OAG 11 rate.

3Grievances were subsequently filed in July 2009 by ten (10) employees working as Client Services Representatives. These grievors claim, in substance, that they too should be paid at the OAG 11 rate for the period the other employee mentioned above receives such rate while working as a Client Services Representative. Additionally, one (1) of the grievors, Ms. Line Duguay, also claims that she should be placed in another Client Services Representative position which she had won through competition. Ms. Duguay asserts that the Employer has improperly delayed her placement into the specific position in question.

4After meeting with the grievors and the Employer representatives, and having had the opportunity to consider the submissions of the parties, I conclude that the grievors are not entitled to the relief sought.

5As stated, the Employer was contractually bound to continue to pay the OAG 11 wage rate to the employee temporarily assigned from the Trial Coordinator position to the Client Services Representative position. In this regard, I am satisfied that the initial assignment, and its subsequent continuance, was made for a legitimate operational purpose. While this employee is entitled to the higher wage rate, I can find no support in the collective agreement for the grievors’ claim to such rate while they perform their regular OAG 8 duties. I further note that the events complained of by Ms. Duguay followed her success in a posting in the Spring of 2010. In my judgment, the issues arising therefrom are not captured by her earlier grievance of July 20, 2009.

6For the above reasons, all of the grievances are denied.