HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-1184.Biladeau.16-12-06 Decision
Crown 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#2013-1184
UNION#2013-0617-0026
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Biladeau) 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 Dan Sidsworth and John Wardell
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officers
FOR THE EMPLOYER Greg Gledhill
Treasury Board Secretariat
Centre for Employee Relations
Employee Relations Advisor
HEARING November 3 & 25, 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. Lindsay Biladeau is a Regular Part Time Cook 2 at the Sudbury Jail. She has
filed a grievance that alleged the Employer failed to convert her to full time
classified status in accordance with Article 31(a).1.15.
[8] In September of 2014 the grievor applied for – and won – a competition for a
Regular Part Time Cook 2. On the same day she began a temporary assignment
as a full time Cook 2 in a position that became available because another
employee was on sick leave. The employee Ms. Biladeau was backfilling for was
reassigned to another ministry on July 6, 2015.
[9] The Employer urged that at this point the grievor was not entitled to be converted
because she is a regular part time classified employee and therefore not eligible
for conversion to full time classified status. I agree with that view.
[10] When the permanent position was posted the grievor applied and attended the
interview. However, during the course of her interview she informed the panel
that she wanted them use the results of a previous interview and that she was
unwilling to participate further.
[11] The grievor did not obtain the permanent position because – in the Employer’s
view – she did not complete the competition process.
- 4 -
[12] After reviewing the facts and documents provided, I am persuaded by the
Employer’s submissions and am therefore of the view that this grievance must
fail. There has been no violation of the Collective Agreement.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 6th day of December 2016.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice Chair