HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-0872.Holtom.16-03-24 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#2015-0872, 2015-1663
UNION#2015-0678-0008, 2015-0678-0022
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Holtom) 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 Gregg Gray and Nick Mustari
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officers
FOR THE EMPLOYER Greg Gledhill
Treasury Board Secretariat
Centre for Employee Relations
Employee Relations Advisor
HEARING November 17, 2015 and March 8, 2016
- 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
- 3 -
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.
[7] Ms. Chelsea Holtom is a fixed term Correctional Officer at the Algoma Remand
and Treatment Centre. She filed a grievance that alleged she is being paid at an
incorrect rate. She filed a second grievance stating that the Employer required
her to take training for the Correctional Officer position which “wasn’t required”.
[8] Ms. Holtom had been working as a fixed term Youth Services Officer at the
Donald Doucet Youth Centre since December 17, 2012. While working in MCYS
she applied for a position to work at ARTC as a Correctional Officer. Her
application was accepted and she went through the Correctional Officer Training
and Assessment program. On April 7, 2014 the grievor signed a document that
stated she accepted a conditional offer of employment for a fixed term
Correctional Officer 1 position.
[9] On July 18, 2014 the grievor received a letter setting out the terms of her
employment as a fixed term Correctional Officer which included her salary at the
level of $24.02 per hour.
[10] It was the grievor’s view that she did not need training because of her work in the
MCYS and further, that she should have moved laterally on a salary grid and
should not have been placed at the start rate.
[11] The Employer stated that COTA is necessary for all new Correctional Officers
and the grievor has no right under the Collective Agreement to be placed higher
on the salary grid than the start level. Both the job competition to which the
grievor applied and her letter of employment set out the salary rate. The positions
of YSO and CO are different in both job duties and classification and given that
the grievor was newly hired as a Correctional Officer, her grievance must be
dismissed.
- 4 -
[12] I must agree with the Employer’s view. If the grievor was not willing to undertake
and pay for the training she could have refused. The Correctional Officer job
posting made clear that in order to be considered for a Correctional Officer
position applicants had to successfully complete a variety of tasks including
COTA.
[13] Further, I can find no violation of the Collective Agreement regarding the salary
placement for the grievor.
[14] I note that the Union referred to various MERC agreements wherein YSOs who
were job threatened were given an opportunity to transfer into a Correctional
Officer position. However, this grievor obtained her position not through a MERC
agreement but through the normal job posting process and therefore the usual
Collective Agreement provisions apply.
[15] For those reasons the grievances are denied.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 24th day of March 2016.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice Chair