GSB#2012-1249

UNION#2012-0618-0022

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Pearson)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Children and Youth Services)

Employer

BEFORE

Felicity D. Briggs

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Tim Mulhall Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Karen Martin Ministry of Government Services Centre for Employee Relations Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING

March 14 and April 2, 2013.

Decision

1Since the spring of 2000 the parties have been meeting regularly to address matters of mutual interest which have arisen as the result of the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services as well as the Ministry of Children and Youth Services restructuring initiatives around the Province. Through the MERC (Ministry Employment Relations Committee) a subcommittee was established to deal with issues arising from the transition process. The parties have negotiated a series of MERC agreements setting out the process for how organizational changes will unfold for Correctional and Youth Services staff and for non Correctional and non Youth Services staff.

2The parties agreed that this Board would remain seized of all issues that arise through this process and it is this agreement that provides me the jurisdiction to resolve the outstanding matters.

3Over the years as some institutions and/or youth centres decommissioned or reduced in size others were built or expanded. The parties have made efforts to identify vacancies and positions and the procedures for the filling of those positions as they become available.

4The parties have also negotiated a number of agreements that provide for the “roll-over” of fixed term staff to regular (classified) employee status.

5Hundreds of grievances have been filed as the result of the many changes that have taken place at provincial institutions. The transition subcommittee has, with the assistance of this Board, mediated numerous disputes. Others have come before this Board for disposition.

6It was determined by this Board at the outset that the process for this disputes would be somewhat more expedient. To that end, grievances are presented by way of statements of fact and succinct submissions. On occasion clarification has been sought from grievors and institutional managers at the request of the Board. This process has served the parties well. The decisions are without prejudice but attempt to provide guidance for future disputes.

7Jeffrey Pearson is a Grounds Maintenance worker at Cecil Facer Youth Centre. He filed a grievance that alleged the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by “running an unfair/flawed competition”. By way of remedy he asked to be given full time employment at Cecil Facer.

8The job competition that the grievor referred to in his grievance was for a position that was limited to job threatened employees. The grievor was not the successful candidate.

9The grievance is denied. There was no evidence of a flawed process. Nor was there any violation of the Collective Agreement. Finally, I understand that the incumbent had greater seniority than the grievor.