GSB#2006-1204

UNION#2006-0585-0001

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Jones et al)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Labour)

Employer

BEFORE

Randi H. Abramsky

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Sheila Riddell Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Barristers and Solicitors

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Omar Shahab Ministry of Government Services Counsel

HEARING SUBMISSIONS

October 13, 2009, January 26, 2010 and March 31, 2010. April 6 and April 9, 2010.

Decision

1The Ministry has raised a preliminary objection to the Board’s jurisdiction to decide this matter. Specifically, the Ministry asserts that the grievance alleges a “free standing” violation of Article 2, Management Rights, over which the Board lacks jurisdiction. In addition, it asserts that the Union’s particulars, which allege a violation of Article 9, Health and Safety, and Article 21.1, Discipline and Dismissal, constitute an improper amendment or expansion of the grievance. The Union opposes this motion.

FACTS

2This arbitration involves a group grievance filed by nine Employment Standard Officer 1’s (ESO 1s), employed in the Central Region Claims Management Centre, located in Downsview, Ontario. The grievance, which was filed on June 9, 2006, is a six paragraph statement. In substance, it alleges that the imposition of a quota of 20 files minimum per week constituted an “unfair workload” and “has no basis for justification as a performance measure and cannot be sustained over a prolonged period of time…” No specific provisions of the collective agreement are cited. The remedy sought is “no quota.” Specifically, the grievance reads as follows:

Subject: ESO 1s Unfair Workload in the Claims Management Centre (CMC)

With respect to the above, we have been told by management that the combined number of triaged and closed files for the current year is 20 files minimum per week, per ESO 1. This amounts to roughly 850 to 900 files per year, per ESO 1 while the performance measure for other ESO 1s in the province is 175.

While closing files is and has been an important function of our job, we understand that a greater emphasis has been placed on the triaging of files in the CMC so that our unit can feed to the needs of ESO2s in central region. We have also been asked to make contact with employers on all files, except for those identified as priority files, and achieve resolution within limited time frames whenever possible.

In view of the above, we consider that we are fully deployed in the early resolution of claims from the moment we make contact with employers, contrary to management’s assertion that we are not, as recently conveyed to us. And why shouldn’t we? Some of us have been carrying out the duties of employment standards officers for years and the closing of files has always been a core component of our job description.

While the performance measure of 20 closed/triaged files minimum per week per ESO 1 may be achieved on rare occasions, it has no basis for justification as a performance measure and cannot be sustain over a prolonged period of time, let alone the entire year given the very recent history of the CMC. Furthermore, it is simply logical that, the greater number of file closures in a given week, the less number of triaged files for the field in that week.

In other words, making contact with employers in the early stage of the process, as we have been asked to do, does not resolve claims, but inevitably results in closures at the expense (for lack of a better work) of files which would otherwise have been triaged to ESO 2s, had no contact been made with employers.

It is somewhat ironic that our success rate in closing files would negatively impact on