HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-0078.St. Denis-Clancy.10-04-06 Decision
Commission de
Crown Employees
Grievance
règlement des griefs
Settlement Board
des employés de la
Couronne
Suite 600 Bureau 600
180 Dundas St. West 180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396 Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB#2009-0078, 2009-2390, 2009-2437, 2009-2439
UNION#2009-0640-0001, 2009-0642-0009, 2009-0642-0010, 2009-0642-0011
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(St. Denis-Clancy et al)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFOREVice-Chair
Felicity D. Briggs
FOR THE UNION
Anastasios Zafiriadis
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Brian Scott
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
Staff Relations Officer
HEARINGMarch 30, 2010.
- 2 -
Decision
[1]The Employer and the Union at the Monteith Correctional Complex agreed
to participate in the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance
with the negotiated Protocol. Most of the grievances were settled through
that process. However, a few remained unresolved and therefore require a
decision from this Board. The Protocol provides that decisions will be
issued within a relatively short period of time after the actual mediation
sessions and will be without reasons. Further, the decision is to be without
prejudice and precedent.
[2]There were four grievances filed as the result of a job competition held for
the position of Storekeeper/Driver by Peter Tom, Lee Purdy, Roxanne
Dumouchel and Pauline St. Denis-Clancy. None of the grievors were given
an interview after the screening process employed by the Employer.
[3]In this particular case, there were two separate screenings of applicants. The
first was performed by Northern Recruitment while the second was
undertaken by management at M.C.C.
[4]The grievors made various allegations including the fact that the competition
was open to the public and ought not to have been; improper screening;
improper consideration (or no consideration) accorded to certain criteria;
inconsistent application of the criteria; and individual bias.
[5]I reviewed the documents pertinent to this competition. There was very little
difference in the relative standing of applicants as between the screening
- 3 -
performed by Northern Recruitment and M.C.C. In my view, this fact
fundamentally undermines the various allegations of bias.
[6]Further, there was no evidence provided by the either grievors or the Union
that would lead me to find that the Collective Agreement has been violated.
[7]While I appreciate that the grievors were frustrated with the result in the
process, I must dismiss the grievances.
th
Dated at Toronto this 6 day of April 2010.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair