HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-1473.Barnes.17-05-26 Decision
Crown 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#2016-1473
UNION#2016-0229-0028
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Barnes) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE Ian Anderson Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION John Wardell
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Laura McCready
Treasury Board Secretariat
Centre for Employee Relations
Employee Relations Advisor
HEARING May 25, 2017
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The Employer and the Union agreed to participate in the Expedited Mediation-
Arbitration process in accordance with the negotiated protocol. The majority of
the grievances are normally settled pursuant to that process. However, if a
grievance remains unresolved the protocol provides that the Vice Chair of the
Board, based on the evidence provided during the mediation session, will
immediately decide the grievance. The decision will be with no or minimal
reasons, be without precedent and prejudice and will be issued within fifteen
working days of the mediation unless the parties agree otherwise.
[2] On May 25, 2017 the parties at the Ontario Correctional Institute (“OCI”) agreed
to participate in the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance with
the negotiated protocol.
[3] The Grievor is a Correctional Officer (“CO”). In June 2016 the Grievor responded
to an “Expression of Interest” (“EOI”) the Employer had posted with respect to a
six month temporary assignment to a Rehabilitation Officer (“RO”) position. The
EOI did not specify the rate of pay. The Grievor states that based on some past
practice, to which I will return below, she expected that she would continue to be
paid for the same number of hours and at same rate of pay that she received as
a CO. The Grievor was awarded the position. She began training for the position
the week of August 15, 2016. She was paid as a CO during this training period.
She states that on August 17, 2016 she learned for the first time that she would
be paid for the lower number of hours and lower rate of pay applicable to the RO
position. She objected, but did not withdraw from the training program. The RO
position would result in a regular schedule of days. This was of interest to the
Grievor because she has a young son and she had made certain arrangements
based on this schedule. On August 29, 2016 the Grievor commenced working in
the RO position. On September 1, 2016 she filed this grievance. She seeks the
CO’s rate of pay and hours.
[4] The Grievor points to the experience of a fellow CO who worked in the RO
position for a two year period and was paid at the CO rate and for CO hours
while doing so. The Employer agrees that this was the case. However, the
Employer points out that CO worked in the position from 2009 to 2011 during a
trial period when the Employer was assessing whether or not to have a
permanent RO position at OCI. In 2014 a permanent RO position was created.
It was filled by a person who was paid at the RO rate and for RO hours. That
person has taken a temporary position as a sergeant. This is what created the
need to backfill the RO position on a temporary basis.
[5] Unlike her fellow CO, the Grievor is backfilling an RO position. The collective
agreement set outs the hours of work and rate of pay of an RO. The Grievor is
being paid in accordance with the collective agreement, not in breach of it.
- 3 -
[6] The grievance is denied.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 26th day of May 2017.
Ian Anderson, Vice-Chair