GSB# 2010-1629

UNION# 2010-0368-0081

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Dunning)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Felicity Briggs

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Nick Mustari Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Gary Wylie Ministry of Government Services Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING

February 27, 2013

Decision

1The Employer and the Union agreed to participate in the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance with the negotiated Protocol for grievances filed on behalf of or by Bailiffs. A number 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.

2Ronald Dunning is a Recreational Officer working at Central East Correctional Centre. He filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by failing to allow him to apply for and receive the designation of Bailiff Backfill. He asserts that he has all of the necessary qualifications and therefore should be given the opportunity.

3It was the grievor’s view that he was being “discriminated against” based on his classification. By way of remedy he asked for a two-year secondment as a provincial bailiff with retroactive compensatory payments for various lost opportunities.

4A copy of the Expression of Interest referred to by the grievor was provided. It is apparent on the face of the document that the Employer is seeking Correctional Officers to work as Bailiff Backfills. As noted above, the grievor suggested that he is being discriminated against on the basis of his classification. Classification is not a prohibited ground of discrimination either in the Collective Agreement or the Ontario Human Rights Code.

5Further, the Employer has fairly broad rights, as set out at Article 2.1, to determine the composition of the workforce. I am of the view that the Employer has not violated the Collective Agreement by its decision to utilize Correctional Officers for the position of Bailiff Backfill. The grievor is not a Correctional Officer and therefore does not meet a fundamental qualification for this position. While it might well be true that he has other abilities as set out in the Expression of Interest, his status of Recreational Officer does not meet the Employer’s requirements.

6Accordingly, the grievance is denied.