HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-0806.Toth.21-03-23 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# 2019-0806
UNION# 2019-0317-0002
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Toth) 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
Michelle LaButte
Treasury Board Secretariat
Employee Relations Advisor
HEARING December 11, 2020 and March 19, 2021
-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] Austin Toth filed a grievance dated April 2, 2019 claiming that the Employer had violated
his rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the Collective Agreement, and any other policies or
directives. In particular, the Grievor asserts that his application for the Transition Exit
Initiative (“TEI”) was denied on March 28, 2019; that he was not provided with the
guidelines regarding Ministry Transformation; and that other members of the bargaining
unit were being granted TEI, so he was not being treated fairly. By way of remedy, Mr.
Toth wanted to have his TEI approved, and to be made whole.
[8] The Grievor worked as a Probation and Parole Officer 2 out of the Huntsville Probation
and Parole Office. He had a seniority date of July 20, 2001. In early 2019 Mr. Toth
-3-
applied for the TEI, and in March he was advised that his request had not been granted
as his exit did not support the Ministry transformation.
[9] According to the Employer, during that time, there were no TEI’s out of the Huntsville
office, as the Ministry had not identified a need for reduction of its staffing. As the matter
of whether or not to grant a request for a TEI is in the Employer’s discretion, based on
its needs at the time, the Employer argues that the Grievor was given an appropriate
response to his request. It points out that later in 2019 the Grievor was approved for a
TEI through the modernization program within the Ministry, and Mr. Toth retired in
December 2019.
[10] Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, I am satisfied that the Employer did not
act in an arbitrary manner when it denied the Grievor’s TEI request. Based on the facts
before me, it is clear that the Grievor’s TEI request was not supported at the time he
made it as there were no reductions in staffing needed at the Huntsville Probation and
Parole office at that time, and when there were later that year, Mr. Toth’s application was
approved. As such, I can find no breach of the collective agreement, and the grievance
is hereby dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 23rd day of March, 2021.
“Gail Misra”
_____________________
Gail Misra, Arbitrator