GSB#2013-4381, 2013-4382, 2013-4383, 2013-4384, 2013-4385, 2013-4386, 2013-4387, 2013-4388, 2013-4389, 2013-4390, 2013-4391, 2013-4392, 2013-4393, 2013-4422, 2013-4478

UNION#2013-0302-0007, 2013-0302-0008, 2013-0302-0009, 2013-0302-0010, 2013-0302-0011, 2013-0302-0012, 2013-0302-0013, 2013-0302-0014, 2013-0302-0015, 2013-0302-0016,

2013-0302-0017, 2013-0302-0018, 2013-0302-0019, 2013-0432-0006, 2013-0302-0020

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Ramsey et al)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Reva Devins

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Seung Chi Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Cassidy Davies Treasury Board Secretariat Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING

September 25, 2014

Decision

1The parties agreed that these matters should be consolidated and proceed as a mediation/arbitration under Article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement without precedential value.

Facts

2The Grievors are Court Reporters with the Ministry of the Attorney General. When they are assigned to work in Small Claims Court, they work alone; there is no Court Registrar to work along with them. On these occasions the duties of the Court Reporter include recording the proceeding, receiving and marking exhibits, managing the docket, dealing with the public and securing the court room during recesses

Submissions

3The Union asserts that the Grievors perform the functions of a Registrar, a higher rated classification, when they are assigned to work in Small Claims Court. Therefore, they should be remunerated as a Registrar. Specifically, the Union submits that there has been a violation of Appendix 32 and Article 6 and that the Grievors should be paid at the rate of a Court Administrator, OAG 8, when they are assigned to Small Claims Court, retroactive to January 1, 2013.

4The Employer maintained that this was a classification grievance and that the Board had no jurisdiction to determine these matters.

Decision

5Having reviewed the evidence and the submission of the parties, I am of the view that the Grievors are essentially challenging the appropriate classification of their current duties. The Board has consistently found that it has no jurisdiction to determine classification grievances: see OPSEU (Union) v. Min. of Training, Colleges and Universities (2013), GSB. No. 2012-0651 (Carrier).

6I would therefore dismiss the grievances.