HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-0048 Yole 14-06-12 DecisionCrown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB#2013-0048
UNION#2013-0234-0030
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Yole) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE Felicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Nick Mustari and Gregg Gray
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officers
FOR THE EMPLOYER Greg Gledhill
Ministry of Government Services
Centre for Employee Relations
Employee Relations Advisor
Linda Elliott
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
Employee Transition Manager
HEARING January 20, June 9, 2014
- 2 -
Decision
[1] Since the spring of 2000 the parties have been meeting regularly to address matters of
mutual interest which have arisen as the result of the Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services as well as the Ministry of Children and Youth Services
restructuring initiatives around the Province. Through the MERC (Ministry Employment
Relations Committee) a subcommittee was established to deal with issues arising from
the transition process. The parties have negotiated a series of MERC agreements setting
out the process for how organizational changes will unfold for Correctional and Youth
Services staff and for non Correctional and non Youth Services staff.
[2] The parties agreed that this Board would remain seized of all issues that arise through this
process and it is this agreement that provides me the jurisdiction to resolve the
outstanding matters.
[3] Over the years as some institutions and/or youth centres decommissioned or reduced in
size others were built or expanded. The parties have made efforts to identify vacancies
and positions and the procedures for the filling of those positions as they become
available.
[4] The parties have also negotiated a number of agreements that provide for the “roll-over”
of fixed term staff to regular (classified) employee status.
[5] Hundreds of grievances have been filed as the result of the many changes that have taken
place at provincial institutions. The transition subcommittee has, with the assistance of
this Board, mediated numerous disputes. Others have come before this Board for
disposition.
[6] It was determined by this Board at the outset that the process for this disputes would be
somewhat more expedient. To that end, grievances are presented by way of statements of
fact and succinct submissions. On occasion clarification has been sought from grievors
and institutional managers at the request of the Board. This process has served the parties
well. The decisions are without prejudice but attempt to provide guidance for future
disputes.
- 3 -
[7] Mr. William Yole is a Correctional Officer 2 working at the Maplehurst Correctional
Complex. He is grieving that all hours he worked as a Fixed Term employee –
irrespective of how many hours were worked in a particular week – should be counted for
the purposes of calculating his CSD.
[8] His grievance states:
I grieve violation of the collective agreement (2.1) and any other applicable act,
legislation, or agreement, best practices in like or similar, whereas my Employer has not
included all hours of work, when calculating my continuous service date. Hours that are
accumulated weekly but fall short of 40 are not included in this process, thus becoming
“uncredited hours.” All uncredited hours are used when calculating my wage increase
(when achieving 2080 hours worked, hourly wage increased to the next higher pay level
for a correctional officer 2. Thus, the calculation of an accumulated total of “all hours
work” cannot be used for the calculation of a raise of wage and not be used in the
calculating of hours for a continuous service date, which in turn reflects credited
vacation, job bidding, etc. This has left a considerable inequity in my continuous service
date with respect to seniority. Employer was notified about this in 1999, 2008 grievances
submitted.
[9] The terms for the calculation of Continuous Service Date are set out clearly in the
Collective Agreement.
[10] Simply put, there is no violation of the Collective Agreement and therefore the grievance
is denied.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 12th day of June 2014.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair