HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-2555.Adu.22-03-09 Decision
Crown Employees Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
GSB#2020-2555
UNION#2020-0290-0032
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) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services) Employer
BEFORE Gail Misra Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION Gregg Gray
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Karen Martin
Treasury Board Secretariat
Employee Relations Advisor
HEARING December 13, 2021 and March 7, 2022
- 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 the Solicitor
General as well as the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services
restructuring initiatives around the Province. Through the MERC (Ministry Employee
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] Steven Adu is a Fixed Term (“FXT”) Recreation Officer (“RO”) at the Roy McMurtry
Youth Centre. His date of hire is May 6, 2019. On November 2, 2020 Mr. Adu filed
a grievance claiming breaches of various provisions of the collective agreement. By
way of remedy, he seeks appointment to a permanent full time RO position.
[8] In particular, the grievor claims that the Employer has unfairly distributed hours of
work to other FXT ROs. As a result, the grievor claims that although he started on
the same date as two other ROs, they had more hours than he did when the
Employer posted the seniority hours for FXT ROs as of October 18, 2020. At that
time Kwame Adjei had 2954.00 hours, Zackary Poyser had 2952.25 hours, and the
grievor had 2914.00 hours.
- 3 -
[9] Mr. Adu has not provided any other information to support his claim and has not
been able to identify any occasions when others were given hours that could or
should have been offered to him. It is therefore unclear how or when this
approximately 40 hour discrepancy occurred. The onus in this case is on the Union
and grievor to show how the Employer has acted improperly in the equalization of
hours.
[10] In any event, an approximately 40 hour difference in the total hours of three people
over the course of an 18 month period is not an extreme differential. Without any
evidence regarding when or how this relatively minor difference in the hours worked
occurred, it is difficult to find that the Employer has breached its obligation to try to
average the hours of work in accordance with the Correctional bargaining unit
collective agreement.
[11] For the reasons outlined above, this grievance is hereby dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 9th day of March 2022.
“Gail Misra”
_________________
Gail Misra, Arbitrator