GSB# 2004-1780

UNION# 2004-0234-0440

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Chroust)

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

December 13, 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. Arbitration decisions are issued in accordance with article 22.16 of the collective agreement and are without precedent.

The grievor is a Correctional Officer 2. He has worked in corrections for approximately 17 years. In 2001 the employer posted an open competition for 78 Probation & Parole Officer (PPO) positions. Mr. Chroust applied, but he was not granted an interview. At the time of the posting the grievor had volunteered as a PPO for approximately 18 months, and had filled the position in a temporary assignment for approximately 6 months.

The union submits that the grievor had the requisite experience and training to be interviewed for the competition, and he had more right to an interview than a member of the general public. The grievance requests that the grievor be placed in the position with full compensation.

The employer responds that the grievance is untimely, since it was filed on July 14, 2004, some three years after the competition. A prior grievance filed by Mr. Chroust about the same posting was not processed beyond the Step 2 meeting, which was held on February 21, 2002. The employer also submits that the grievance is a Probation & Parole matter, and does not come within the jurisdiction of the Board under the Maplehurst protocol. With regard to the merits, the employer takes the position that, even if the grievor was entitled to an interview, the appropriate remedy would be a declaration of violation.

After having reviewed the collective agreement and the submissions of the parties, it is my view that, even were I to agree that the grievance was timely, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the screening process was flawed. As a result the grievance is dismissed.

Dated at Toronto, this 17^th day of February, 2006.