HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-1446.Union-Emms et al.22-03-30 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#2013-1446, 2013-1574, 2013-1696
UNION# 2013-0999-0049, 2013-0999-0063, 2013-0999-0069
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Union – Emms et al) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Treasury Board Secretariat) Employer
BEFORE Reva Devins Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION Ed Holmes
Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP
Counsel
FOR THE EMPLOYER George Parris
Treasury Board Secretariat
Legal Services Branch
Counsel
HEARING March 24, 2022
- 2 -
Decision
[1] These grievances are part of a series regarding the operation of the
Transition Exit Initiative, (“TEI”), under Appendix 46 of the Collective
Agreement. The parties agreed that the current matters should be
determined in accordance with Article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement
with brief reasons for decision.
[2] The parties provided Will Say Statements that set out the circumstances that
relate to each individual grievor and the Ministry’s response. Generally,
these grievances were filed by1 six grievors in the Ministry of Natural
Resources and Forestry. Each grievor applied for TEI before they retired
from the Ontario Public Service (“OPS”), however, their request was not
approved by the Employer.
Appendix 46
[3] The relevant provisions of Appendix 46 are set out below. I have included
the initial provision and noted where it was subsequently amended:
1. All regular, regular part-time and flexible part-time employees will be
eligible to apply to a Transition Exit Initiative (TEI).
2. An employee may request in writing voluntary exit from employment
with the OPS under the TEI, which request may be approved by the
Employer in its discretion [amended to in its “sole” discretion, October
30, 2015]. The Employee’s request will be submitted to the Corporate
1 The names of the grievors are listed in Appendix A of this decision, along with three additional grievors
who withdrew their grievances.
- 3 -
Employer. The Employer’s approval shall be based on the following
considerations:
i. At the time that an employee TEI request is being considered, the
Employer has plans to reduce positions in the OPSEU bargaining unit;
and
ii. The Employer has determined in its discretion that the employee’s exit
from employment supports the transformation of the Ontario Public
Service.
iii. The Employer will consider whether employees are on the TEI lists
when making surplus decisions [added to revised Memorandum of
Agreement, October 30, 2015].
3. If there is more than one employee eligible to exit under the TEI, the
determination of who will exit under the TEI shall be based on seniority.
[or]
If there is more than one employee eligible to exit under the TEI within
the same workplace, the determination of who will exit under the TEI
shall be based on seniority [amended, October 30, 2015].
Analysis
[4] I have now issued a series of decisions on the scope of the Employer’s
discretion to allow or deny a request and concluded that:
- 4 -
i. Appendix 46 confers a broad discretion on the Employer to determine
whether granting a request for TEI would support its vision of
transformation of the OPS: Koeslag et al., issued January 12, 2016.
ii. Despite this broad discretion, the ordinary principles for the proper
exercise of discretion apply. Consequently, when the Employer
considers requests for TEI, the decision cannot be based on irrelevant
considerations or otherwise violate the principles set out in Re
Kuyntjes, GSB #513/84 (Verity); Koeslag, supra.
iii. While recognising that there may be a number of approaches that the
Employer could adopt with respect to transformation of the public
service, it remains in the Employer’s sole discretion to decide whether
an ‘employee’s exit from employment supports transformation’ and, in
so doing, to determine which factors are relevant to exercising their
discretion: Vadera, issued June 28, 2018.
iv. The Employer can offer the TEI as a targeted inducement to
encourage employees to voluntarily retire or resign, allowing them to
eliminate a position without the need to surplus other employees who
wish to remain. However, the Employer is not required to approve all
requests for TEI, even where there is evidence of change or transition.
The Employer retains the discretion to determine when and how the
TEI will be offered: Kimmel, issued November 29, 2018 and Anich,
August 9, 2019.
- 5 -
v. An identical outcome for many grievors does not automatically mean
that the Employer improperly exercised their discretion by applying a
blanket rule. Where the common denominator among grievors was a
rational consideration that was reasonably related to achieving
transformation, the discretion was properly exercised: Klonowski,
issued November 7, 2019.
vi. Absent evidence of bad faith or discrimination, the approval of an
earlier request for TEI, on its own, is not sufficient to establish an
improper exercise of discretion: Koroscil, June 18, 2020. Similarly, the
approval of subsequent requests does not warrant an automatic
conclusion that the decision to deny an earlier request was arbitrary or
unreasonable. Inevitably, timing matters. A different outcome may
result from the timing of an employee’s request for TEI: Heath, March
3, 2021.
vii. A TEI application does not survive the departure of an employee from
the OPS. Appendix 46 is not available to employees after they retire,
or their employment relationship is severed. TEI provides enhanced
benefits to an employee when the Employer determines that their “exit
from employment supports the transformation of the OPS”. When an
employee is no longer an active employee, by definition, they cannot
exit again and Appendix 46 has no application: Thompson, issued
May 28, 2021.
- 6 -
[5] I appreciate the continued disappointment and frustration of long service
employees who believe their applications could and should have been
approved. TEI is clearly a significant benefit for retiring employees.
Regrettably, as I have already determined, TEI is not a general retirement
allowance provided to everyone who requests it.
[6] After careful consideration of the evidence and submissions of the parties, I
have applied the principles established in earlier cases to the facts that
pertain to these grievors and determined that the Employer properly
exercised its discretion when it considered the grievors’ requests to exit
under the TEI.
[7] The grievances are therefore dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 30th day of March 2022.
“Reva Devins”
Reva Devins, Arbitrator
Appendix A
1. Emms, Stephen, Resource Tech 5-Conserv Offcr, GSB# 2017-2661,
OPSEU# 2016-0713-0004
2. Blais, Fern, Resource Tech 4-Conserv Officer, GSB# 2016-0922,
OPSEU# 2016-0447-0004
3. Ireland, Dan, Pilot 4 G6, GSB# 2016-1494, OPSEU# 2016-0623-0006
4. Burt, Debbie, 11OAD Office Administration 11, GSB # 2016-2419,
OPSEU # 2017-0605-0001
5. Federchuk, Debra, 08OAD Office Administration 08, GSB# 2016-0774,
OPSEU# 2016-0623-0003
6. Steedman, Ruth, Resource Technician Sr 2 (B/U), GSB# 2015-1561,
OPSEU# 2015-0623-0002
7. Marck, Joanne, Resource Technician 3, GSB# 2015-2243,
OPSEU# 2015-0609-0001 – WITHDRAWN
8. Richardson, Katherine, Resource Technician Sr 2 (B/U), GSB# 2016-1077,
OPSEU# 2015-0212-0009 – WITHDRAWN
9. Macdougall, Robert, Meat Hygiene Officer, GSB# 2018-1521,
OPSEU# 2018-0211-0012 – WITHDRAWN