GSB#2007-1835, 2008-3004, 2008-3005, 2008-3081, 2008-3082, 2008-3083

UNION#2007-0369-0073, 2008-0369-0393, 2008-0369-0394, 2008-0369-0396, 2008-0369-0397, 2008-0369-0398

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Grievors)

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

Richard Blair Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Barristers and Solicitors Counsel

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Caroline Cohen Ministry of Government Services Legal Services Branch Counsel

CONFERENCE CALL

November 25, 2013

Decision

1On March 3, 2011, the parties signed a Memorandum of Agreement that provided, amongst other things, that WDHP/Human Rights training would be given to “all staff” at CNCC. Specifics were set out regarding the development and delivery of the agreed upon training.

2In May of 2012 the parties attempted to negotiate a follow up Memorandum of Agreement. It became apparent in the discussions between the parties regarding this supplementary Memorandum that there was a disagreement about the extent, if any, of the Employer’s ongoing obligation to provide this WDHP training.

3The Board was provided with the relevant documents prior to a conference call being held. The parties were given an opportunity to set out their respective positions and supporting arguments.

4As discussed with the parties, it is not my intention to reproduce the terms of the original confidential Memorandum of Agreement or the supplemental documents. Further, I will not set the submissions capably made by counsel. Rather, as agreed, this decision will simply provide direction to the parties with little or no reasons.

5Turning to the first area of dispute, I disagree with the Union’s view that the Memorandum mandates the Employer to give ongoing training to all new employees in the future. In my view, the reference to “all staff” meant all staff at CNCC as of the date of the signing of the Agreement, not all staff as that staff is employed in the future. Indeed, the Memorandum itself refers to the “completion” of the training. The use of the word completion would lead one to conclude that there is to be an end to the Employer’s obligation to provide the training set out in the Memorandum of Agreement.

6The second area of dispute was whether the employees who did not attend the training for reasons including leaves of absence, illness or apparent intentional avoidance must be given training to satisfy the terms of the Agreement. Notwithstanding the fact that the Employer has held many sessions in its efforts to fulfill its obligations under the Memorandum, “all staff” has not been trained. They should be. All staff employed as of the date of the signing of the Memorandum should be trained in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. I appreciate that the Employer has made significant effort to train all staff but unfortunately, the training of all staff has not yet been accomplished. The words “all staff” are not qualified in the Agreement by phrases such as “to the extent possible” or “as can reasonably be scheduled”. There is no reason to give the words “all staff” anything other than their ordinary or plain meaning.

7This training has been expensive for the Employer and it has already held many sessions. It makes sense for the parties to meet to discuss how best to provide the remaining training perhaps with a view to cost effectiveness. I suggest such a meeting be held within a reasonable period of time following the issuance of this decision.

8The parties agreed in their submissions that no staff should be allowed to simply bypass this training. The Union acknowledged that the Employer has a “host of methods” of ensuring that employees attend this mandatory training.

9I remain seized.