GSB#2015-0872, 2015-1663

UNION#2015-0678-0008, 2015-0678-0022

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Holtom)

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

Gregg Gray and Nick Mustari Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officers

FOR THE EMPLOYER

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

HEARING

November 17, 2015 and March 8, 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.

7Ms. Chelsea Holtom is a fixed term Correctional Officer at the Algoma Remand and Treatment Centre. She filed a grievance that alleged she is being paid at an incorrect rate. She filed a second grievance stating that the Employer required her to take training for the Correctional Officer position which "wasn't required".

8Ms. Holtom had been working as a fixed term Youth Services Officer at the Donald Doucet Youth Centre since December 17, 2012. While working in MCYS she applied for a position to work at ARTC as a Correctional Officer. Her application was accepted and she went through the Correctional Officer Training and Assessment program. On April 7, 2014 the grievor signed a document that stated she accepted a conditional offer of employment for a fixed term Correctional Officer 1 position.

9On July 18, 2014 the grievor received a letter setting out the terms of her employment as a fixed term Correctional Officer which included her salary at the level of $24.02 per hour.

10It was the grievor's view that she did not need training because of her work in the MCYS and further, that she should have moved laterally on a salary grid and should not have been placed at the start rate.

11The Employer stated that COTA is necessary for all new Correctional Officers and the grievor has no right under the Collective Agreement to be placed higher on the salary grid than the start level. Both the job competition to which the grievor applied and her letter of employment set out the salary rate. The positions of YSO and CO are different in both job duties and classification and given that the grievor was newly hired as a Correctional Officer, her grievance must be dismissed.

12I must agree with the Employer's view. If the grievor was not willing to undertake and pay for the training she could have refused. The Correctional Officer job posting made clear that in order to be considered for a Correctional Officer position applicants had to successfully complete a variety of tasks including COTA.

13Further, I can find no violation of the Collective Agreement regarding the salary placement for the grievor.

14I note that the Union referred to various MERC agreements wherein YSOs who were job threatened were given an opportunity to transfer into a Correctional Officer position. However, this grievor obtained her position not through a MERC agreement but through the normal job posting process and therefore the usual Collective Agreement provisions apply.

15For those reasons the grievances are denied.