GSB#2013-0048

UNION#2013-0234-0030

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Yole)

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

Nick Mustari and Gregg Gray Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officers

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Greg Gledhill Ministry of Government Services Centre for Employee Relations Employee Relations Advisor

Linda Elliott Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services Employee Transition Manager

HEARING

January 20, June 9, 2014

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.

7Mr. William Yole is a Correctional Officer 2 working at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex. He is grieving that all hours he worked as a Fixed Term employee – irrespective of how many hours were worked in a particular week – should be counted for the purposes of calculating his CSD.

8His grievance states:

I grieve violation of the collective agreement (2.1) and any other applicable act, legislation, or agreement, best practices in like or similar, whereas my Employer has not included all hours of work, when calculating my continuous service date. Hours that are accumulated weekly but fall short of 40 are not included in this process, thus becoming “uncredited hours.” All uncredited hours are used when calculating my wage increase (when achieving 2080 hours worked, hourly wage increased to the next higher pay level for a correctional officer 2. Thus, the calculation of an accumulated total of “all hours work” cannot be used for the calculation of a raise of wage and not be used in the calculating of hours for a continuous service date, which in turn reflects credited vacation, job bidding, etc. This has left a considerable inequity in my continuous service date with respect to seniority. Employer was notified about this in 1999, 2008 grievances submitted.

9The terms for the calculation of Continuous Service Date are set out clearly in the Collective Agreement.

10Simply put, there is no violation of the Collective Agreement and therefore the grievance is denied.