Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Heath) v. The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Children and Youth Services), 2016 CanLII 41669

GSB#2015-0607

UNION#2015-0219-0003

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Heath)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Randi H. Abramsky

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Indika Chandrasekara Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Karen Martin Treasury Board Secretariat Centre for Employee Relations Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING

June 20, 2016

Decision

1This matter arises under Article 22.16 of the parties’ collective agreement. The Employer has raised a preliminary objection to the Board’s jurisdiction to hear and determine this grievance, which contests the Employer’s decision not to “screen in” the Grievor with respect to a job competition in an AMAPCEO bargaining unit.

The following facts are undisputed:

1. The Grievor is a Probation Officer and has worked in that capacity since August 2004. In all she has 33 years of service with the Ontario Public Service, as of the date of the hearing.
2. She applied for posting #72012, a Policy/Program Analyst. This was a temporary, 12-month position in the AMAPCEO bargaining unit.
3. The Grievor was not “screened in” to the job for an interview. Four others were screened in and interviewed.
4. No one who applied actually got the job as it was filled by the Employer through a compassionate transfer.

2Based on these undisputed facts, I conclude that the Employer’s objection to my jurisdiction must succeed. The Board has no jurisdiction to make a determination under the AMAPCEO collective agreement unless the grievance is brought by AMAPCEO. An OPSEU bargaining unit member has no right to grieve a competition conducted under another collective agreement, even though it is with the same employer. It does not constitute “a difference between the parties ‘arising from the interpretation, application, administration or alleged contravention of this [OPSEU] Agreement.’” In this regard, the Grievor has no ability to complain about a breach of the AMAPCEO collective agreement. She has the same status as an external candidate.

3I also find that the issue is now moot, as no one actually got the job through the posting. The posting was essentially pulled, and the job was awarded on a compassionate basis.

4Consequently, despite the Grievor’s disappointment and frustration, the Board does not have jurisdiction to address this matter.

5Accordingly, the grievance must be dismissed.