HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-1145.Adu et al.19-12-27 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# 2018-1145; 2019-1323, 2019-1321
UNION# 2017-5112-0342; 2019-5112-0147, 2019-5112-0145
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Adu et al) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of the Solicitor General) Employer
BEFORE Gail Misra Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION Dan Sidsworth
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER A.J. Quinn
Ministry of the Solicitor General
Employee Transition Manager
HEARING July 19, 2019 and December 19, 2019
- 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 (now, the Ministry of the Solicitor
General) 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 these 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.
[7] Margaret Adu filed Grievance No. 2017-5112-0342 on November 1, 2017 claiming
that the Employer unfairly removed her custodial responsibility allowance (“CRA”)
when she was working as a driver at the Toronto South Detention Centre (“TSDC”).
[8] The grievor is a Driver at the TSDC. According to the grievor, she had received the
CRA previously when she had worked as a driver, and when she had worked on a
temporary assignment as a Cook in the kitchen. However, when she went back to
being a driver, she was no longer paid the CRA. The grievor claims that two other
drivers at the TSDC were receiving the CRA while she was not.
- 3 -
[9] On July 10, 2019 Ms. Adu filed a second grievance (No. 2019-5112-0147) claiming
that all drivers were no longer being paid the CRA, but she felt they should be.
[10] On July 10, 2019 Rodrigo Sarmiento, another driver at the TSDC, filed Grievance
No. 2019-5112-0145, also claiming that all drivers were no longer being paid the
CRA, but ought to receive it.
[11] According to the Employer, there had been a patchwork across the province of
some institutions paying the CRA to drivers while others did not. However, since
the issuance of a decision by Arbitrator Ian Anderson on December 11, 2018, the
Employer has moved to regularize the practice province-wide. Hence, as of July
2019, the two drivers at the TSDC were no longer being paid the CRA.
[10] Pursuant to the Anderson decision (OPSEU (Campbell et al) and Ministry of
Community Safety and Correctional Services, GSB #s 2016-1269 et al., December
11, 2018), Motor Vehicle Operators are not entitled to the CRA, which pursuant to
Appendix UN 2 of the Collective Agreement, is payable to employees responsible
for the custody of inmates in their charge, and who meet the other conditions
outlined in the Appendix.
[11] Having reviewed the submissions of the parties and the jurisprudence before me,
for the reasons outlined above, these grievances are denied.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 27th day of December, 2019.
“Gail Misra”
Gail Misra, Arbitrator