HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-1780.Chroust.06-02-17 Decision
Crown Employees Commission de Nj
Grievance Settlement reglement des griefs
Board des employes de la
Couronne
~
Suite 600 Bureau 600 Ontario
180 Dundas Sl. West 180 rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396 Telec. (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2004-1780
UNION# 2004-0234-0440
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Chroust) Union
- and -
The Crown In RIght of Ontano
(Mimstry ofCommumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer
BEFORE Barry Stephens Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Stephen GIles
Gnevance Officer
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
FOR THE EMPLOYER Rena Khan
Staff RelatIOns Officer
Mimstry of Commumty Safety and
CorrectIOnal ServIces
HEARING December 13 2005
2
DeCISIon
The partIes agreed to an ExpedIted MedIatIOn-ArbItratIOn Protocol for the Maplehurst
CorrectIOnal Complex. It IS not necessary to reproduce the entIre Protocol here Suffice It to say
that the partIes have agreed to an expedIted process whereIn each party provIdes the vIce-chair
wIth wntten submIssIOns, whIch Include the facts and authontIes the party Intends to rely upon,
one week pnor to the heanng. At the heanng, oral eVIdence IS not called, although the vIce-chair
IS permItted to request further InformatIOn or documentatIOn. In addItIOn, If It becomes apparent
to the vIce-chair that the Issues Involved In a partIcular case are of a complex or sIgmficant
nature, the case may be taken out of the expedIted process and processed through "regular"
arbItratIOn. Although IndIVIdual gnevors often wIsh to provIde oral eVIdence at arbItratIOn, the
process adopted by the partIes provIdes for a thorough canvaSSIng of the facts pnor to the
heanng, and leads to a fair and efficIent adjudIcatIOn process ArbItratIOn decIsIOns are Issued In
accordance wIth artIcle 22 16 of the collectIve agreement and are wIthout precedent.
The gnevor IS a CorrectIOnal Officer 2 He has worked In correctIOns for approxImately 17
years In 2001 the employer posted an open competItIOn for 78 ProbatIOn & Parole Officer
(PPO) posItIOns Mr Chroust applIed, but he was not granted an IntervIew At the tIme of the
postIng the gnevor had volunteered as a PPO for approxImately 18 months, and had filled the
posItIOn In a temporary assIgnment for approxImately 6 months
The umon submIts that the gnevor had the reqUIsIte expenence and traInIng to be IntervIewed for
the competItIOn, and he had more nght to an IntervIew than a member of the general publIc The
gnevance requests that the gnevor be placed In the posItIOn WIth full compensatIOn.
3
The employer responds that the gnevance IS untImely SInce It was filed on July 14 2004 some
three years after the competItIOn. A pnor gnevance filed by Mr Chroust about the same postIng
was not processed beyond the Step 2 meetIng, whIch was held on February 21 2002 The
employer also submIts that the gnevance IS a ProbatIOn & Parole matter and does not come
wIthIn the JunsdIctIOn of the Board under the Maplehurst protocol With regard to the ments, the
employer takes the posItIOn that, even If the gnevor was entItled to an IntervIew the appropnate
remedy would be a declaratIOn of vIOlatIOn.
After havIng revIewed the collectIve agreement and the submIssIOns of the partIes, It IS my VIew
that, even were I to agree that the gnevance was tImely there was InSUfficIent eVIdence to
demonstrate that the screemng process was flawed. As a result the gnevance IS dIsmIssed.
Dated at Toronto thIS 1 ih day of February 2006