IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Amalgamated Transit Union - Local 1587 (Union)

Union

and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Metrolinx - GO Transit)

Employer

BEFORE

Nimal Dissanayake

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Ian Fellows (Counsel) Ursel Phillips Fellows Hopkinson LLP Kassia Bonisteel (Counsel) Ursel Phillips Fellows Hopkinson LLP

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Glenn Christie (Counsel) Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP

HEARING

Jan. 24, 25, 26, Oct. 12, 13, 18, 31, Nov. 6, 8 of 2017; Sept. 25, 26, Oct. 3, 4 of 2018; and March 22, May 10, July 2, Oct. 10 and Nov. 1 of 2019

Decision

1The union filed a policy grievance dated June 16, 2008. For present purposes it suffices to note that the grievance was about the scope of the bargaining unit. The Board issued its decision on August 12, 2014. The employer sought judicial review, and the Divisional Court’s decision was released on July 27, 2015. The issues in dispute, the Board’s disposition of those issues, were set out in a subsequent decision of the Board dated October 14, 2016, at paragraphs 2-5, as follows:

2The grievance raised the issue of whether or not seven positions were included within the bargaining unit represented by the union. The union took the position that it had bargaining rights with respect to an “all employee” unit under the recognition clause of the collective agreement. It submitted in the alternative that if the Board finds the language in the recognition clause to be ambiguous, evidence relating to negotiating history and past

Amalgamated Transit Union - Local 1587 v. The Crown in Right of Ontario (Metrolinx - GO Transit), 2020 CanLII 32961

Case Summary

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

BETWEEN

Union