Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Max) v. The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Children and Youth Services), 2009 CanLII 66584

GSB#2008-2803

UNION#2008-0618-0021

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Max)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Children and Youth Services)

Employer

BEFORE

Felicity D. Briggs

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Sandra Harper Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Linda Elliott Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre Deputy Superintendent

HEARING

May 28, 2009.

DECISION

1In October of 2003 the Province of Ontario established a new Ministry of Children and Youth Services. Included in that portfolio is responsibility for institutions/youth centres managing youth in conflict with the law. It was determined that young offenders should be in stand-alone centres and completely separated from adults. This decision is causing various operational changes within the Ministry of Children and Youth Services as well as the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

2In order to achieve this goal it was necessary to build and commission new facilities for youth in conflict with the law. While no existing youth facilities were to close, some beds would be transferred to these new youth centres. Further, all youth beds that are located in adult centres would be moved to the stand-alone youth centres.

3Accordingly, the parties negotiated a Memorandum of Agreement setting out the terms and conditions governing the movement of classified and unclassified employees as the result of these organizational changes. Included in that Memorandum is a provision stating that I would remain seized of any implementation disputes that arose and it is that agreement that gives me the jurisdiction to deal with the instant grievances.

4As in the earlier transition process for the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, the parties were motivated by a wish to minimize lay-offs and ensure, to the extent possible, employment stability.

5Ms. Simone Max is Youth Service Officer at Cecil Facer Youth Centre. She has grieved that the Employer violated a MERC Agreement, the Collective Agreement and the Lateral Transfer Policy. By way of remedy she requests a transfer to the Sudbury Jail.

6There were seven vacancies at the Sudbury Jail. Ms. Max requested a lateral transfer to the Sudbury Jail. It is her assertion that all positions that were a result of the disentanglement agreement were to be filled by way of lateral transfer and her request for transfer should have been granted.

7In fact, there was no dispute between the parties that four of the seven positions at the Sudbury Jail were filled by roll-overs. The final three positions were filled via lateral transfers. However, each of the employees who received a lateral transfer to the Sudbury Jail had more seniority than the grievor and for those reasons, the grievance must fail.

8I am of the view that the vacancies were filled appropriately and the grievance is dismissed.