GSB#2013-1445, 2013-2212
UNION#2013-0547-0017, 2013-0547-0022
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Daoussis)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Children and Youth Services)
Employer
BEFORE
Mary Lou Tims
Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
David Wright Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Counsel
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Ferina Murji Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel
Paul Meier Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel
HEARING
March 19, 2014, May 5, 2015
Decision
THE GRIEVANCES:
1The grievor, Mr. Dennis Daoussis, filed three grievances (GSB #’s 2013-1444, 2013-1445 and 2013-2212). Grievance 2013-1444 has been withdrawn. This Decision pertains to Grievances 2013-1445 and 2013-2212.
2Grievance 2013-1445, dated June 4, 2013, alleges that the grievor was denied a Health Reassignment opportunity in breach of the collective agreement and applicable legislation. By way of remedy, the grievor seeks the position of Customer Care Team Advisor, Ministry of Government Services (T-MG-53331/13), posted April 30, 2013 (“Customer Care Team Advisor”).
3Grievance 2013-2212, dated August 19, 2013, alleges the violation of the collective agreement, the OPS Return to Work policy and applicable legislation. It asserts that the grievor met the “entry level qualifications” for four positions, and asks by way of remedy that he be “successfully matched to a position within the OPS.” Two of the four positions addressed by Grievance 2013-2212 are in issue at this time. These are Administrative Assistant, IT Services, Ministry of Transportation (T-MT-56175/13), posted August 19, 2013 (“Administrative Assistant”), and Correspondence Coordinator, Ministry of Finance (T-FN-55852/13), posted July 29, 2013 (“Correspondence Coordinator”). The grievance also alleges that the grievor met “entry level qualifications” for a third position, that of Intake Worker, Family Responsibility Office, Ministry of Community and Social Services. The parties agree that the grievor was assigned to that position in or around January 2014. A fourth position raised by the grievance is that of Monitoring Centre Officer, Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Union Counsel advised that Grievance 2013-2212, to the extent that it relates to the Monitoring Centre Officer position only, is withdrawn.
4The three positions in issue before me now which I shall refer to as “the disputed positions” are therefore Customer Care Team Advisor, Administrative Assistant, and Correspondence Coordinator, each as described above.
5Union Counsel stated that the grievances before me allege that the Employer failed in its duty to accommodate the grievor’s disability by failing to place him in one of the disputed positions.
THE PARTIES’ WRITTEN HEARING PROTOCOL:
6The parties agreed upon a process by which at least certain aspects of the case would be addressed by way of written submissions and Counsel filed a Written Hearing Protocol (“the Protocol”) to which the parties agreed. The Protocol states in part as follows:
This agreement is without precedent and is without prejudice to any position that the Parties may take in any other case or the position they may take in any other proceeding.
The Parties acknowledge that the Grievor has put the following (3) positions into issue as a result of various Grievances (hereinafter the “Disputed Positions”):
#1…Administrative Assistant…
#2…Correspondence Coordinator…
#3…Customer Care Team Advisor
- The Parties confirm that the following Grievances are in issue before Vice-Chair Tims, but only to extent described herein:
a. Disputed Positions #1- 2 put into issue via Grievance dated August 19, 2013 (GSB#2013-2212…); and
b. Disputed Position #3 put into issue via Grievance dated June 4, 2013 (GSB# 2013- 1445…).
DUE DATES
By October 24, 2014:
The Employer will provide the Union with the Job Information Packages (“JIPs”) that RSO used in assessing each of the Disputed Positions #1-#3. For greater certainty, the JIP’s include the Position Description and selection criteria for each of the Disputed Positions.
With respect to Disputed Position #3, the Employer will also provide the Union with the Assessment Rationale completed by the Hiring Manager….
For ease of reference, the Employer will also provide the Union with copies of the relevant EP submitted by the Grievor and used by RSO to assess his qualifications for Disputed Positions #1-#3 (i.e., his EP dated April 25, 2013).
By December 30, 2014
- The Union will provide the Employer and the Vice-Chair with its full submissions in respect of each of the Disputed Positions, including a detailed explanation as to why the Grievor asserts that he is qualified for the Disputed Position by comparing the requirements and duties of the position and its selection criteria against his stated qualifications and demonstrated experience as directly and explicitly referenced in his applicable EP, his applicable cover letter and his Position Description for Child Care Worker 3….
By March 9, 2015…
- The Employer will provide the Union and the Vice-Chair with its full response submissions in respect of each Disputed Position
By March 13, 2015…
- The Union will provide any reply submissions….
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
If the GSB determines that the Grievor is qualified for one or more of the Disputed Positions, the GSB will remit the matter back to the parties for discussion. If the Parties are unable to reach their own resolution, then either Party may request that Vice-Chair Tims reconvene the hearing.
If the matter is brought back before Vice-Chair Tims, the Employer reserves its right to assert that by assigning the Grievor to the position of Intake Worker…, a position that the Grievor had grieved that he was qualified to perform and that he has performed since in or around