Loading...
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