GSB#2012-0504

UNION#2010-0368-0176

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Sipila)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Joseph D. Carrier

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Jackie Crawford and Laura Josephson Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officers

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Laura McCready and Antoinette Karner Ministry of Government Services Centre for Employee Relations Employee Relations Advisors

HEARING

June 25, 2013

Decision

1The grievance of Ms. Jennifer Sipila was referred to mediation/arbitration in accordance with Article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement between OPSEU (The Union) and the Ontario Crown, Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (M.C.S.C.S., The Employer). There was no challenge to my jurisdiction to hear and rule on the matter. Further, the Parties requested the decision be issued on a without precedent or prejudice basis, and without extensive reasons.

2Ms. Jennifer Sipila a Correctional Officer at the Lindsay Correctional facility grieved that, for the 2009 period, she was improperly denied her Incentive Allowance which is provided for in an Appendix to the Collective Agreement, COR7-Special Adjustments.

3The Incentive Allowance is, in essence, a good attendance bonus which is an earned team or group benefit. Where the average absenteeism for the group during a set time frame does not exceed a designated target, each member of the group is entitled to an incentive allowance.

4In the case here, Ms. Sipila’s home position continued to be that of a regular Correctional Officer during the relevant time frame; however, she was, nonetheless, temporarily on secondment or assignment to the position of Discharge Planner. That is a different classification which entails different duties from those of a Corrections Officer and enjoys a different wage scale. As such she was not included in the group of Correctional Officers whose absences were counted for the purposes of determining the average attendance for the relevant time frame.

5It is my view, that, since she was in the classification and treated as a Discharge Planner and not a member of the group of Correctional Officers (C.O.) included in that calculation, it would be inappropriate to consider her as eligible or entitled to share in the attendance bonus earned by the C.O. group during the relevant time frame.

6This is consistent with a finding of Vice-Chair Abramsky who found that:

“……..Appendix COR7 cannot be read to include hours away from work on leaves or secondments”.

(see GSB File #2010-0405, May 20, 2011 at paragraph 32 (R. Abramsky)

7In the circumstances, the grievance is dismissed.