HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-4001.Saini.15-02-13 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#2008-4001, 2009-1336, 2009-1337
UNION#2009-0517-0033, 2009-0517-0090, 2009-0517-0089
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Saini) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE Deborah J.D. Leighton Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Nick Mustari
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER James Cheng
Treasury Board Secretariat
Centre for Employee Relations
Employee Relations Advisor
HEARING December 11, 2014
- 2 -
Decision
[1] Mr. Steve Saini was an OAG 6 at the Toronto West Detention Centre at the time he filed the
grievances on February 20, June 20, and July 20, 2009. The union alleges that the employer
breached Articles 2, 3, 6 and 9 of the collective agreement as “they pertain to the posting of
vacancies in the Ontario Public Service.” The union alleges further that management
“constructively prevented” the grievor from advancing his career.
[2] These are competition grievances. In one case the grievor was not successful in getting an
interview for a position at CNCC. The grievor was given an interview for a position at OCI
but was unsuccessful in the competition. The grievor believes that the employer blocked his
career advancement in both cases because he had previously filed a complaint to the Human
Rights Tribunal, which was subsequently settled by a confidential Minutes of Settlement.
The grievor retired in November 2009.
[3] The employer submitted that there was no evidence to support the grievor’s allegations that
the employer prevented the grievor’s advancement for any improper purpose and there was
no violation of the collective agreement. The employer also argued that the only evidence
presented to the Board was the grievor’s feeling that his human rights complaint must have
led to him not winning the competitions.
[4] The parties referred this grievance to mediation/arbitration in accordance with Article 22.16
of the collective agreement. At the outset of the hearing, the parties agreed that I had the
jurisdiction to deal with this matter. They asked that I issue a decision without precedent or
prejudice, and without written reasons.
[5] Having carefully considered the evidence and the submissions of the parties on the
grievances, as well as the jurisprudence of the Board, I hereby deny the grievances.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 13th day of February 2015.
Deborah J.D. Leighton, Vice-Chair