GSB#2009-0078, 2009-2390, 2009-2437, 2009-2439

UNION#2009-0640-0001, 2009-0642-0009, 2009-0642-0010, 2009-0642-0011

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (St. Denis-Clancy et al)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)

Employer

BEFORE

Felicity D. Briggs

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Anastasios Zafiriadis Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Brian Scott Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services Staff Relations Officer

HEARING

March 30, 2010.

Decision

1The Employer and the Union at the Monteith Correctional Complex agreed to participate in the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance with the negotiated Protocol. Most of the grievances were settled through that process. However, a few remained unresolved and therefore require a decision from this Board. The Protocol provides that decisions will be issued within a relatively short period of time after the actual mediation sessions and will be without reasons. Further, the decision is to be without prejudice and precedent.

2There were four grievances filed as the result of a job competition held for the position of Storekeeper/Driver by Peter Tom, Lee Purdy, Roxanne Dumouchel and Pauline St. Denis-Clancy. None of the grievors were given an interview after the screening process employed by the Employer.

3In this particular case, there were two separate screenings of applicants. The first was performed by Northern Recruitment while the second was undertaken by management at M.C.C.

4The grievors made various allegations including the fact that the competition was open to the public and ought not to have been; improper screening; improper consideration (or no consideration) accorded to certain criteria; inconsistent application of the criteria; and individual bias.

5I reviewed the documents pertinent to this competition. There was very little difference in the relative standing of applicants as between the screening performed by Northern Recruitment and M.C.C. In my view, this fact fundamentally undermines the various allegations of bias.

6Further, there was no evidence provided by the either grievors or the Union that would lead me to find that the Collective Agreement has been violated.

7While I appreciate that the grievors were frustrated with the result in the process, I must dismiss the grievances.