GSB#2012-2971

UNION#2012-0617-0027

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Hogan)

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

HEARING

September 17, 2013 and January 20, 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.

7John Hogan was a Correctional Officer with the Sudbury Jail. He was offered and accepted a retirement package. Upon leaving he was informed that he owed the Employer 28 hours of work. The hours owing were deducted from his final vacation credit pay out. He filed a grievance that alleged the Employer had violated the Collective Agreement.

8The Employer explained that the hours owing were as the result of the grievor changing from a compressed work week schedule to an administrative (Monday to Friday – eight hour) schedule.

9The Employer provided a Reconciliation Report which revealed that the grievor was scheduled for 17,452 hours during his employment and was paid for 17,480. The shortfall of twenty-eight hours was the time deducted from the grievor's final vacation pay out.

10The grievor took the position that none of the other ten people who retired at the same time owed hours. Further he was annoyed that he was not notified of the owing hours at a time when he could have worked overtime to reconcile the time.

11While I understand the grievor's frustration in not being told of the shortfall in hours until his imminent departure, there has been no violation of the Collective Agreement and therefore the grievance is denied.