HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-1286.Romagnuolo.20-02-20 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# 2019-1286
UNION# 2019-0368-0222
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Romagnuolo) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of the Solicitor General) Employer
BEFORE Brian P. Sheehan Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION Gregg Gray
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Sia Romanidis
Treasury Board Secretariat
Employer Relations Advisor
HEARING January 16, 2020
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The Employer and the Union at the Central East Correctional Centre agreed to
participate in the Expedited Mediation/Arbitration process in accordance with the
negotiated Protocol. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol. Suffice to say,
that the parties have agreed to a True Mediation/Arbitration process wherein each party
provides the Arbitrator with their submissions setting out the facts and the authorities
they respectively will rely upon. This decision is issued in accordance with the Protocol
and with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement; and it is without prejudice or
precedent.
[2] The grievor, Kimberly Romagnuolo, is employed as a Classification
Officer/Discharge at the Central East Correctional Centre (CCEC).
[3] The grievance relates to a claim of the grievor that the Employer breached the
relevant Overtime Protocol by assigning a particular assignment to a Social Worker
rather than offering it to the grievor as an overtime opportunity.
[4] The Union asserts that the particular work in question has exclusively been
performed by Rehabilitation Officers.
[5] The work in question was a written assessment form that was completed with
respect to the discharge of an inmate. The Union submitted that if a discharge involves
a General Population inmate who has been in the institution less than 180 days, then the
relevant written assessment form is to be completed by a Rehabilitation Officer. If on the
other hand, the discharge involves a General Population inmate who has been in the
institution for greater than 180 days, the work in question is to be performed by a Social
Worker.
- 3 -
[6] The Union asserts that the General Population inmate who was being assessed
for discharge had only been in the institution for 131 days. Accordingly, it is asserted
that the Employer was obligated to offer the work to the grievor as an overtime
assignment.
[7] The Employer asserts that the grievance is out of time because the assignment of
work in question took place in April 2019; yet, the grievance was not filed until July 8,
2019. On this point, the grievor apparently only became aware of the fact that a Social
Worker completed the discharge assessment in question when she was otherwise
working on documentation pertaining to the inmate in early July.
[8] On a substantive basis, the Employer asserts there is no obligation to offer the
work exclusively to Rehabilitation Officers.
[9] In my view, it is not necessary to address the Employer’s timeliness objection,
since, on the merits, there is not a basis for the grievance to be successful. In this
regard, the complete answer to the grievance is that the relevant Overtime Protocol was
not breached because the work in question was not overtime work. Related to this point,
the Union did not point to any other provision of the collective agreement that was b
reached as a result of the Employer assigning the work in question to a Social Worker.
[10] Accordingly, the grievance is, hereby, dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 20th day of February, 2020.
“Brian P. Sheehan”
Brian P. Sheehan, Arbitrator