HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-0006.Koenderink et al.20-09-03 DecisionCrown 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# 2017-0006
UNION# 2017-0247-0021
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Koenderink et al) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of the Solicitor General) Employer
BEFORE
Brian P. Sheehan
Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION
Dan Sidsworth
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Justin O’Gorman
Treasury Board Secretariat
Employee Relations Advisor
HEARING August 26, 2020 (by videoconference)
-2-
DECISION
[1] In April of 2011, the parties signed a Memorandum of Agreement for the Med/Arb
process within this Ministry. In that agreement it was agreed that overtime
grievances would be dealt with on a regular basis at every institution. It was the
stated expectation that the parties would “move forward together in a timely manner
to resolve as many outstanding overtime grievances” as possible at each institution.
Monthly meetings were to be scheduled for this purpose. It was hoped that these
monthly overtime grievance sessions would resolve most grievances.
[2] It was also agreed in the Memorandum that Med-Arb sessions would be held to deal
exclusively with overtime grievances from time to time. The parties would meet to
attempt resolution of the outstanding grievances and the remaining disputes would be
put before this Board.
[3] In May of 2012, the first decision from this process was issued. As agreed by the
parties, that decision was without prejudice and without reasons. Since that time a
number of sessions have been held and various decisions rendered. The process
has not been altered and continues to serve the parties well.
[4] The grievance relates to a pilot project with respect to the introduction of the E-Roster
scheduling system undertaken by the Employer at the Brantford Jail. A number of
grievances alleging improper assignments subsequently arose as the E-Roster
project unfolded.
[5] This group grievance alleges a violation of Article 22.3 of the collective agreement in
relation to the purported failure of the Employer to hold grievance meetings regarding
the filed E-Roster grievances. Specifically, the grievance states:
The employer has not held any meetings with the union when dealing
with E-Roster Grievances. All E-Roster Grievances are apparently
“placed into a folder to deal with at a later time”. Not once has there been
-3-
a meeting within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the grievance, and
therefore there has been no decision in writing within seven (7) days after
the meeting. This is a complete contradiction to the Collective Bargaining
Agreement.
[6] The Employer does not ostensibly dispute that certain Article 22.3 meetings may not
have taken place.
[7] While a sense of frustration on the part of the Union is, at one level, appreciated, the
relevant jurisprudence suggests that a failure of a grievance meeting to take place, or
a failure to respond to the grievance in a timely manner, as contemplated under the
collective agreement deems such a failure to act as a negative response to the
grievance. Accordingly, the party that receives such a negative response is entitled
to move the grievance to the next step in the grievance process. In more
straightforward terms, what flows from a failure of the Employer to conduct an Article
22.3 meeting is that an answer of “no” has been given by the Employer with respect
to the grievance; thus, a failure to conduct the meeting or respond in a timely fashion,
as provided for under Article 22.3, does not in itself warrant any remedial relief.
[8] Against that background the grievance is, hereby, dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 3rd day of September, 2020.
“Brian P. Sheehan”
________________________
Brian P. Sheehan, Arbitrator