The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1994-0518.Ghandoni.98-06-08OWTARIO CROWNEMPLOYEES 111111-GRIEVANCE SETILEMENT BOARD EMPLOYESDEfACOURONNE DEL'OWTARIO COMMISSIONDE REGLEMENT DESGRIEFS 180DUNDASSTREETWEST,SUITE600,TORONTOONM5G1zIi 180,RUEDUNDASOUEST,BUREAU600,TORONTO(ON)M5G1Z8 TELEPHONEfTELEPHONE:(416)326-1388 FACS/MILEfTELECOPIE:(416)32(j-1396 GSB#0518/94,0519/94 OPSEU#94A828,94A829 INTHE MATIEROFANARBITRATION Under THECROWNEMPLOYEESCOLLECTIVEBARGAININGACT Before THEGRIEVANCESETILEMENTBOARD BETWEEN .OPSEU(Ghiandoni) Grievor -and- TheCrowninRightofOntario (MinistryoftheSolicitorGeneralandCorrectionalServices) Employer BEFORE FORTHE UNION LorettaMikus D.-Roberts Counsel RyderWrightBlair &Doyle Barristers &Solicitors Vice-Chair ..FORTHE EMPLOYER HEARING ,',~.' A.Gulbinski StaffRelationsOfficer MinistryoftheSolicitorGeneral& CorrectionalServices March18,1998 .t~- InanawarddatedAugust16,1996,thegrievor,GregGhiandoni,thisBoarddeterminedthatthe grievor'ssixmonthcontractofemploymentanunclassifiedProbationandParoleOfficerinthe Manitowaningofficewasnotrenewed,inpart,becauseheexercisedhisrightsunderthecollective agreement.TheAwardstated,inpart,atpages16and17: HavingfoundthattheEmployerdid,inpart,relyonthegrievor'srequestthatthe Unioninterveneonhisbehalf,theissuethenbecomeswhat,ifany,remedythe grievorshouldbegranted. Itisacceptedthat,inreinstatingagrievor,Boardsof Arbitrationattempttoplacethegrievor,totheextentpossible,inthepositionhe/she wouldhavebeeninbutfortheEmployer'sactions.Inmostcasesthatisnota difficultassignment.Giventherecentdevelopmentsinthepublicsector,specifically theactualandproposedreductionofstaffinalllevelsofthepublicservice,itismore difficultinthecircumstancesofthiscase.Nevertheless,whatisreasonablebased ontheevidencebeforemeistheconclusionthat,butforthebadfaithconsiderations andinaccordancewiththeactualpractice,thegrievor,wouldhavehadhiscontract extendedinAprilof1994foranothersixmonths.Whetherhewouldhavehad furtherextensionsattheendofthecontractwoulddependonnumerousfactors, includingtheEmployer'soperationalrequirementsatthetime.Wecanonly speculateastowhatthosefactorsmightbe.However,theBoardissatisfiedthat,but forthebadfaithoftheEmployer,thegrievor'scontractwouldhavebeenrenewed foranothersixmonths. Idirectedthepartiestoattempttoagreeontheappropriateremedyandremainedseizedintheevent theywereunsuccessful. OnMarch18,1998,IreconvenedtheBoardtohearsubmissionsonremedy:Weattemptedto mediatebutwereunsuccessfulandthepartiesagreedtoproceedbywrittensubmissions. TheGrievor'spositionisthat,butfortheEmployer'sfailuretorenewhiscontract,hewouldnow haveafulltimepositionwiththeMinistry.Accordinglyheaskedthathebereinstatedintoafull- timeclassifiedpositionofProbationandParoleOfficer.Alternatively,heisentitledto 2 reinstatementonthetermsofarenewablesixmonthcontractwithfullcompensationdatingfrom thedateofhisterminationtothedateofhisreinstatement,includinginterestandadirectionthatthe Employeramendallitsrecords,includingEmployee/Separation!WorkPerformancerecord,to indicatethatthegrievorwouldbeconsideredforre-hire.Ifthegrievorshouldapplyfor employrnentwiththeministry,theEmployershallconsiderhisapplicationonitsmeritsingood faith.Inthefinalalternative,thegrievorisentitledtocompensationforasixmonthcontract, includinginterest,andadirectionasreferredtoabove. Itwasthegrievor'spositionthathelostmorethanjustarenewalofhissixmonthcontract.Hewas deniedtheopportunityforanyfutureemploymentintheministry.ButfortheEmployer'sbadfaith, hewouldhavepursuedhiscareerasaProbationandParoleOfficer.Inordertobemadewholehe shouldbegiventhatopportunity. TheUnionreferredtothe MinistryofCorrectionalServicesandOPSEU(Miller&McPhail) (1986),GSB#531/82and532/82(Verity),inwhichtheBoardreinstatedunclassifiedpart-time employeeswhohadbeendismissedwithoutcauseandorderedfullcompensationwithinterestfor theentirefouryearperiodbetweenterminationandtheorder.Theawardwasmeanttoputthe grievor'sinthepositiontheywouldhavebeeninbutfortheemployer'sactionsandcompensate themforthelostopportunitytodemonstratesuitabilityforreappointment.InthiscasetheUnion arguedthatthegrievorwouldhaveremainedinhispositionatKirklandLakeforaminimumofsix monthsandhecouldhavehadtheopportunityforfurtheremployment.TheBoardmustrecognize thatlossofopportunityfortheremedytobecomplete. 3 TheEmployertookthepositionthat,sincethereisnounclassifiedworkavailable,thegrievoris onlyentitledtothemonetaryequivalentofasixmonthcontract.Thepositionthegrievorwas seekingin1994wasfilledbythelateraltransferofafull-timeclassifiedemployee.Therehavebeen nofurthervacanciesattheManitowaningoffice.Thepositionthegrievorwasofferedona temporarybasisinKirklandLakewasadesignatedbilingualpositionthatthegrievorwouldnot havequalifiedforinacompetition.TherewerenounclassifiedcontractsintheSudburyofficeat thattimeandthetwotemporaryvacanciesthatdidoccurin1996wereneverbackfilled. TheBoardorderedthatthegrievorwasentitledtoasixmonthcontractortheequivalent.Thereis noentitlementbeyondthatcontractbecausetherewerenootherpositionsforwhichthegrievorwas qualified,classifiedorunclassified,whichwouldhavecontinuedhisworkassignmentbeyondthat sixmonthperiod.Giventheremotenessoffurthercontractrenewals,theEmployertookthe positionthat,toplac;ethegrievorinthepositionhewouldhavebeeninbutforthebreach,the Employerisonlyobligatedtopayhimtheequivalentofasixmonthcontractofemploymentasa ProbationandParoleOfficer. TheEmployerarguedthatthiscaseisdistinguishableonitsfacts.Theworkthegrievorwasdoing wasnotongoingasintheMillerandMcPhailcase(supra).Thegrievor'scontractwerealways intendedtofillspecificvacancieswhich,astheybecamefilled,nolongerrequiredhisservices. Therewasnocommitmentforfuturecontractsorforfull-timeclassifiedwork,asintheMillerand McPhail case. :.,.. 4 DECISION TheBoard,intheawardonthemerits,foundthatthegrievor'scontractwasnotrenewedbecause ofbadfaith.Itrecognized,however,thatcircumstancesinthepublicsectormadeitalmost impossibletospeculateaboutthefutureemploymentinanypositioninanyministry.·The submissionsoftheparties,havingbeenpreparedwiththebenefitofhavinglivedthroughthemonths followingthegrievance,showthatuncertaintywasreasonable.Thepositionthegrievorheldwas filledwithafull-timeclassifiedemployeepursuanttothelateraltransferprovisionofthecollective agreement.Therewerenootherunclassifiedpositionsthegrievorwouldhavebeenabletofillat thetime.Thetemporaryassignmenthewasgivenhadbeendesignatedabilingualpositionthathe couldnothavequalifiedforinajobcompetition.Therewerenoothervacancieshe·couldclaim. Thegrievorwasnotdeniedanopportunitytobecomeaclassifiedemployeebecauseofhisimproper termination,unlikethegrievorsinthecasereliedonbytheparties.Therewerenosuch opportunitiesafterhiscontractexpired. Inthecircumstances,hisremedyislimitedtotheonesixmonthcontracthewasdeniedasaresult oftheEmployer'sactions.Sincethetimehaslongpastwhentheremighthavebeenapositionfor himandtherearenounclassifiedpositionstoofferhimatthistime,heisentitledtothemonetary equivalentofsixmonthspay,includingapplicablebenefits,ifany,andinterestcalculatedin accordancewiththeHallowellHouseformula. Aswell,sincetheBoarddeterminedthatthedecisionnottorenewthegrievor'scontractwasdone inbadfaithandnotbasedonanycriticismsofhisperformanceasaProbationandParoleOfficer, 5 theEmployerisdirec~ed toamendhisrecords,indudinganyEmployeeSeparation/Work PerformanceRecord,thatwouldsuggestthegrievorwouldnotbeconsideredforre-hireifheshould applytothisMinistryforemployment. g7,{ Datedthis.9KfdayofJune,1998 J'~~6t~~:e~ta Mikus,Vice-Chair .',.