GSB# 2002-2175
UNION# 2002-0234-0090
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Bruce)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFORE
Barry Stephens
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
January 27, 2006.
Decision
The parties agreed to an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol for the Maplehurst Correctional Complex. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol here. Suffice it to say that the parties have agreed to an expedited process wherein each party provides the vice-chair with written submissions, which include the facts and authorities the party intends to rely upon, one week prior to the hearing. At the hearing, oral evidence is not called, although the vice-chair is permitted to request further information or documentation. In addition, if it becomes apparent to the vice-chair that the issues involved in a particular case are of a complex or significant 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 the hearing, and leads to a fair and efficient adjudication process. Arbitration decisions are issued in accordance with article 22.16 of the collective agreement and, therefore, are without precedent.
The grievor is a classified Correctional Officer 2. He applied for a posting for the Institutional Crisis Intervention Team (ICIT) in January 2002. The selection process for ICIT involves four stages, all of which were explained on the posting. The grievor passed the first two stages, the physical fitness test and the screening interview. However, he did not pass the third stage, which is set out in the posting as follows:
“3. Successful Candidates will then be selected by the Superintendent. This selection will be based on attendance and work performance.”
There were six openings posted for the ICIT team, but only five were filled, all by unclassified CO’s. The grievor argues that the employer acted in a discriminatory or bad faith manner in finding that he was not at least relatively equal to one of the five successful applicants.
The employer responds that ICIT members are not in a special classification, but rather are CO’s with special training, and are called for crisis intervention duties above and beyond normal CO duties. The employer asserts that reliable attendance is a reasonable requirement of the position, given the unknowable timing of crisis intervention and the extended hours often involved.
After reviewing the submissions of the parties and the collective agreement, it is my conclusion that the grievances should be dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 27th day of February, 2006.