GSB#2013-2168

UNION#2013-0290-0033

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Rozario)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Felicity D. Briggs

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Nick Mustari Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Karen Martin 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.

7Mr. David Rozario was a Child Care Worker at Thistletown Regional Centre (“TRC”). He is presently a fixed term Youth Services Officer at Roy McMurtry Youth Centre.

8In the spring of 2012 it was announced that the TRC would close. Employees were told of their redeployment options at this time and advised that the parties were attempting to negotiate additional options beyond those found in the Collective Agreement. The closure date of TRC was thought to be March of 2014.

9In April of 2012 the parties agreed on a number of entitlements and options for employees. The grievor elected to exercise his rights under Article 20 – that is to say that he took a voluntary exit package and received enhanced severance and six month of salary continuance. He received his pre-surplus notice on June 14, 2012. During this time he received advice from the Union that other options might well present themselves in the future.

10As it happened, further agreements were made between the parties and when the grievor learned of this he attempted to elect one of the newly negotiated options. However, he was already been declared surplus and therefore had no entitlement to any of the new options.

11Subsequently the grievor was appointed to a fixed term contract as a Youth Services Officer at RMYC. In order to obtain that position he was required to repay his enhanced monies.

12After hearing the facts and submission, I am of the view that this grievance must be denied. There has been no breach of the Collective Agreement or of any Memorandum of Agreement. The grievor decided to take a particular option and then – unfortunately – regretted his decision as time unfolded. While I understand the grievor’s frustration, I must dismiss this grievance.