HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-1367.Seat.17-11-06 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#2017-1367
UNION# 2017-5112-0206
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Seat) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE Felicity D. Briggs Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION Gregg Gray and Dan Sidsworth
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officers
FOR THE EMPLOYER Greg Gledhill
Treasury Board Secretariat
Centre for Employee Relations
Employee Relations Advisor
Al J. Quinn
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
Senior Employee Transition Advisor
HEARINGS August 27, 2017 and November 1, 2017
- 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 as well as the Ministry of Children
and Youth 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.
- 3 -
[7] Dr. Rajko Seat, a Psychologist 1 at the Toronto South Detention Centre has filed
a grievance that alleges a violation of articles 7.4.1 and 7.4.2 of the Collective
Agreement.
[8] On March 31, 2016 this Board issued a decision, Re MCSCS-OPSEU (Seat)
GSB#2015-1526, denying an earlier grievance filed by Dr. Seat which contended
that he was improperly compensated as a Psychologist 1 at TSDC. By way of
remedy he requested compensation at the Psychologist 2 rate.
[9] It was the Employer’s view in this matter that the grievance before this Board is res
judicata. It was urged that the grievance before this Board at this time is identical
to that determined in March of 2016. The parties are the same, the Collective
Agreement provisions and other relevant documents are the same and there are
no facts that the grievor relies upon that are different. Accordingly the grievance
should be dismissed.
[10] The Union urged that this grievance be heard on the merits.
[11] I am of the view that the Employer’s preliminary motion must be upheld. This
dispute was heard, considered and determined by this Board. Accordingly, the
grievance is dismissed
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 6th day of November 2017.
Felicity D. Briggs, Arbitrator