GSB# 2003-1131
UNION# 2003-0234-0168
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Matwey et al.)
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
November 9, 2005.
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.
The grievors are all Nurse 2’s. Their grievance relates to the competition for filling of three Nurse 3 positions at the institution. The grievors advance the somewhat unusual proposition that the three positions should not have been filled with an internal candidate, as this would only exacerbate conflicts that existed in the department prior to the filling of the positions. Although none of the grievors applied for the positions in question, they grieve that the job competition was not run in a fair and equitable manner. There was no specific allegation as to how the competition breached the collective agreement, nor is there any evidence of bad faith on the part of the employer. Employer counsel submitted that the job competitions were consistent with the requirements of the collective agreement, and also asserted that, since none of the grievors had actually applied for the jobs in question, they had no standing to challenge the outcome.
After reviewing the submissions of the parties and the collective agreement, it is my view that there is no evidence to support the conclusion that the job competitions in questions were processed in a manner inconsistent with the terms of the collective agreement. As a result the grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 1st day of February, 2006.