Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-1103.Graydon.20-01-07 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# 2019-1103 UNION# 2019-0551-0038 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Graydon) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Solicitor General) Employer BEFORE Gail Misra Arbitrator FOR THE UNION Matthew Hrycyna Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer FOR THE EMPLOYER Al J. Quinn Ministry of the Solicitor General Manager, Employee Transition Advisor 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 (now, the Ministry of Children, Community & Social 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] Alexa Graydon filed a grievance dated March 28, 2019 claiming that the Employer had violated her rights under Articles 2, 6, Appendix COR 16 and Appendix COR 19 of the Collective Agreement. In particular, the grievor asserts that she has worked as both a Youth Probation Officer and an adult Probation and Parole Officer, in the Ministries of Children and Youth Services and the Solicitor General. However, she claims that her submissions of interest for rollovers have been rejected on the basis that she does not qualify for a rollover. By way of remedy, the grievor wants the Employer to give her a permanent Probation and Parole Officer position in the Greater Toronto Area, and to make her whole. - 3 - [8] Ms. Graydon began work on May 30, 2016 as a Rehabilitation Officer. On August 1, 2016 she took a secondment to a youth Probation Officer position, and remained in that position until October 1, 2018. Since that time, and as a result of Ms. Graydon’s success in a competition for a Probation and Parole Officer (“PPO”) position, she has been working in that capacity. [9] In January 2019 the grievor applied for a permanent PPO job when an Expression of Interest (“EOI”) was posted pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement respecting the Probation and Parole Officers Recruitment Process (“PPORP”). Ms. Graydon was deemed ineligible for the EOI. The grievor maintains that she should have been found eligible because her time as a youth Probation Officer in combination with the approximately three months she had worked as a PPO, should have counted towards the 18 month requirement for a rollover. The Union maintains that since both the youth Probation Officer and the PPO positions share the same class code, time worked as a Probation Officer should count towards the time required for the PPO rollover. [10] The Employer argues that an employee seeking to roll over into permanent PPO status must have worked for at least 18 months in that position. Since the grievor had not done so by the time of the EOI, she did not qualify for consideration for a roll over from Fixed Term status to Regular (classified) status. [11] Upon review of the “Memorandum of Agreement (Revised November 2016), Probation and Parole Officer (PPO) Recruitment Process (PPORP), Q’s and A’s” document, it is clear that the parties had agreed that it applied to all permanent adult PPO vacancies (see Q3, A3). Furthermore, in Q9, where the question is posed “who is eligible and how is eligibility determined?”, A9, the response, indicates that employees may be eligible if they meet a number of criteria, one of which is “Have been in a Probation and Parole Officer position, for a minimum duration of 18 continuous months (equivalent to 2,588.25 hours) as of the date identified in the EOI posting”. [12] While I note that there are references to both “Probation Officers” and to “Probation and Parole Officers” in the Memorandum, which may have contributed to some confusion on the Union and grievor’s part, there is little doubt that the parties’ expectation, consistent with the eligibility language, was that the employee had to have been in the fixed term position of Probation and Parole Officer for at least 18 continuous months in order to be considered to be made permanent in that position when a vacancy arose. [13] Having considered the facts and the submissions of the parties, I am satisfied that the grievor was not qualified for a PPO rollover in January 2019 as she had only begun to work in that position as of sometime in October 2018. As such, she had - 4 - not been in a PPO position for at least 18 continuous months. For these reasons, this grievance is dismissed. Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 7th day of January, 2020. “Gail Misra” Gail Misra, Arbitrator