GSB#2015-3167

UNION#2015-0467-0030

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (McDonald)

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

Dan Sidsworth and Gregg Gray Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Greg Gledhill Treasury Board Secretariat Centre for Employee Relations Employee Relations Advisor

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

HEARING

March 8, May 9, 2016

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.

7Morgan McDonald is a Correctional Officer at Quinte Detention Centre. She alleged that the Employer has violated the Collective Agreement because her sick time was not included towards forty hour work weeks while she was a fixed term employee. It was noted on the grievance that such hours for 2015 were included but she requested that all hours back to 2008 be counted.

8Hours of work provided are provided to each fixed term employee each time there is a rollover of fixed term employees to full time status. Those hours are provided to allow people to challenge the hours and to make clear the most senior employees who will be rolled over. In every instance employees are told to check the figures and have five days to challenge the hours set out in the listing. The grievor did not challenge her hours until the filing of her grievance in late 2015.

9In 2015 the grievor provided medical certificates for her absences during that year and the Employer gave credit for sick time accordingly. The Union urged that the Employer should have gone further back and counted all of the sick absences of the grievor.

10The Employer took the view that every fixed term employee has an opportunity to challenge their hours when those hours are provided during the roll-over process. To allow them to go back years later and make adjustments has the potential to skew the relative seniority of those eligible for roll-over.

11I am of the view that the Employer's view must prevail. Fixed term employees are informed of their hours during each roll-over process and are specifically told to ensure the correctness of the Employer's calculations. It makes sense that all are notified that they are entitled to make such a challenge during this time because it may be that eligible hours not counted would make the difference between remaining fixed term or being rolled over into classified status.

12The Employer is entitled to rely on the calculations it arrived at in the absence of a challenge from an employee. Indeed, major decisions are made regarding employee status based solely upon these numbers. The Employer does not want to later face challenges from employees that the roll-over process was wrong and should be undone or redone.

13I am of the view that the challenging of hours that were provided during the roll-over process is limited to the hours worked since the last roll-over process.

14Accordingly, the grievance is denied.