The Grievance Sample Clauses

The Grievance. (i) relates to a selection for promotion decision and the position concerned has a maximum salary that is no greater than that prescribed for an ASA6 in the collective agreement covering employees employed by Airservices in that classification at that time; and (ii) is that the decision was not determined by a proper assessment of the relative efficiency of the employee lodging the grievance and the successful employee. (For the purposes of the determination of a grievance of the kind referred to in clause 16(b), the question of the relative efficiency of employees shall be regarded by the EGB as entailing an assessment of the relative abilities, qualifications, experience, standard of work performance and personal qualities of the relevant candidates in relation to the position concerned.)

The Grievance. Arbitration Board shall hear and determine the difference and shall issue an award in writing and the decision is final and binding upon the parties and upon any member affected by it. The decision of a majority is the award of the Grievance Arbitration Board, but if there is no majority, the decision of the Chairman governs, and it shall be deemed to be the award of the Board.

The Grievance. (a) Form (b) Content

The Grievance. (i) relates to a selection for promotion decision and the position concerned has a maximum salary that is no greater than that prescribed for SY TTCU; and (ii) is that the decision was not determined by a proper assessment of the relative efficiency of the employee lodging the grievance and the successful employee.

The Grievance. Arbitration Board may quash or confirm any action taken by either party and may vary any action taken by either party, but shall not impose an action contrary to the agreement nor alter the agreement.

The Grievance. All grievances to be processed under this Article XIII shall be presented in writing. The grievance shall state: the name of the grievant; the Article and Section of the Agreement alleged to have been violated; the date of the occurrence which gave rise to the grievance; and, a description of the occurrence. The grievance shall be signed by the grievant or their representative, dated and present to the grievant’s immediate supervisor.

The Grievance. As indicated, the Overtime Grievance was filed on November 19, 2009. It came in the form of a letter from Union Representative ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ to ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇, which read in part: The Union is in receipt of your email dated November 12, 2009 in which the employer takes the position that employees who work unscheduled hours are not entitled to time and one half according to Article 21 of the Collective Agreement. It is the Union’s contention that the Employer’s refusal to pay overtime rates for unscheduled hours worked is in violation of Article 21.06 and all other applicable provisions of the Collective Agreement. The Union seeks to have the Union and any person adversely affected, be made whole in all respects which would involve, but is not limited to, payment of full compensation for any and all lost income, benefits and other entitlements, monetary or otherwise. All such redress is to be applied on a fully retroactive basis and is to include, without limitation, the payment of interest in accordance with the Bank of Canada prime rate. The Union further reserves the right to seek any other damages or corrective action it deems appropriate under the circumstances. The Union’s position on remedy was modified at arbitration. It now seeks an order and declaration that “if, at any time, employees work shifts outside that shift schedule established at the time that they bid on the posted position or the shift they were initially assigned, they are entitled under the Collective Agreement to a minimum of four hours pay, at overtime rates, and the Employer has breached the Collective Agreement in failing to do so”. The Union does not seek “any other retroactive remedy” under the Overtime Grievance.

The Grievance. 16. The grievance in this case was filed by the local Union, Okanagan-Skaha Teachers' Union. It relates to disputes about class size and composition for the current school year, 2010-2011, within the Okanagan Skaha school district. Thirty-four classes are disputed in the grievance. 17. Other local Unions in other school districts have or will also be filing their own grievances about class size and composition. This is the result of a change within the B.C. Teachers' Federation that future grievances on this issue will be made at the local level. Previously, disputes over class size and composition were considered provincial matters. Local grievances are a significant change from the provincial approach that resulted in the provincial and representational process and the Merits Award. 18. The background to the grievance in this case was explained by ▇▇. ▇▇▇, the President of the Okanagan Skaha Teachers' Union. Beginning in 2002 the members of his local have had a growing sense of frustration about the issue of class size and composition. There was some hope after the 2006 amendments to the School Act but ▇▇. ▇▇▇ testified that the current view is that the legislation is "completely flawed" and it does "not protect workloads, students or the educational environment". He was critical of release days as set out in the Merits Award because "getting a release day, one or two years later, has no benefit to workload" issues. He testified that in his school district there are a number of disputed classes from the 2006-2007, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years that have not been resolved by arbitration. There are no outstanding class disputes for the 2007-2008 school year in this district. Another problem, described by ▇▇. ▇▇▇, is that the current situation creates conflicts between teachers. A February 2011 article written by ▇▇. ▇▇▇ for the local Union's newsletter described an example of colleague-to-colleague conflict as "When colleagues become frustrated that some teachers "accept" huge classes/overages …". 19. ▇▇. ▇▇▇ described "the basic cause" of the class size/composition disputes as being that "freely negotiated language [in the pre-2002 collective agreement about class sizes] was ripped out of the collective agreement". The faith of teachers in the system is "tenuous at best" because "they see nothing in the way of corrective measures" when there are disagreements over class sizes. This has now developed into frustration with the local union because the...

The Grievance. The grievance shall be: