GSB# 2003-0252
UNION# 2004-0234-0087
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Douglas)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFORE
Marilyn A. Nairn
Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
Stephen Giles
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Rena Khan
Staff Relations Officer
Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services
HEARING
October 6, 2005.
Decision
The parties have agreed to an expedited mediation-arbitration process to determine grievances at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex and Vanier Centre for Women. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire protocol here. Suffice it to say that the parties have agreed to attempt to resolve matters at mediation; failing which, they have agreed to utilize an expedited arbitration process. In preparation, each party provides the Vice-Chair with written submissions one week prior to the hearing. Those submissions include a statement of the facts, as well as the argument (supported by any authorities) on which each party intends to rely. At the hearing, oral evidence is not called, although the Vice-Chair may request further information or documentation. In addition, if it becomes apparent to either party, or to the Vice-Chair, that the issues involved in a particular case are of a complex nature, the case may be taken out of the expedited process and processed through ‘regular’ arbitration. Although individual grievors often wish to provide oral evidence at arbitration, the process adopted by the parties provides for a thorough canvassing of the facts prior to, and at the hearing, and leads to a fair and efficient adjudication process.
In this case, the grievance asserts that the employer is in violation of the collective agreement by failing to credit the grievor, Iain Douglas, with service from 1984 to 1989. There was no dispute that the grievor resigned his employment with the OPS in 1989 on good terms and for personal reasons. He returned to the OPS in 1991 and worked until he was surplused in 2005. The grievor asserted that he was being treated differently from other employees who had left the Ministry and returned to have earlier service recognized.
Firstly, it is not now possible to predict how the grievor’s continuous service date may have been calculated upon his return to the OPS in 1991 had the matter been pursued at that time. The terms of the collective agreement may or may not have been the same or been administered in the same manner. At the expedited arbitration hearing the grievor’s concern centred on how others were treated. He described persons as having taken leaves of their own accord. A leave of absence, which may be granted for a variety of reasons, may not result in a break in service. The particular details and circumstances are not clear although it may well be the case that there are situations where an individual had prior service recognized for reasons which are not now before me.
This grievance, filed in 2003, flows from the 2002-2004 collective agreement. The language is clear. Article 18 provides that seniority is based on “continuous service”, that is, service which is not interrupted by a separation from employment with the OPS. Having resigned in 1989, the grievor’s service was interrupted. The collective agreement stipulates that he is therefore not entitled to have any service prior to his return in 1991 recognized for purposes of calculating his seniority.
Having carefully reviewed the evidence and submissions of the parties, I find that there is no basis for recognizing the grievor’s service between 1984 and 1989 for purposes of his current seniority. This grievance is therefore dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 17th day of October, 2005.