GSB#2015-2328

UNION# 2015-0551-0030

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Kanhai)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Felicity D. Briggs

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Indika Chandrasekara and Sandra Harper Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officers

FOR THE EMPLOYER

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

HEARING

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.

7Fiona Kanhai is a Probation Officer II in the Ministry of Children and Youth Services. She filed a grievance that alleged that the Employer violated Article 31A.15.1.1 by failing to convert her to classified status.

8It was the grievor's contention that she had performed to same work in the same Region for a period in excess of eighteen consecutive months which qualified her for conversion to classified status as of September 9, 2015.

9The Employer urged that this grievance must be dismissed. It noted that on October 15, 2013, the parties signed a Memorandum of Agreement regarding Probation Officer Recruitment Process. In that agreement it was stated that all employees eligible as of the signing date of the MOA would be converted and that "the entitlements for Probation Officers under 31A.15 shall be waived for the duration of the current collective agreement." That agreement was renewed (and therefore continued) by the parties in the Memorandum of Agreement which was ultimately signed January 9, 2016 for the renewal Collective Agreement.

10It is apparent that the quid pro quo for waiving Article 31A.15 conversion rights of Probation Officers was the introduction of a process for roll-over to classified status, similar to that used for Correctional Officers. I of am of the view that such an agreement between the parties in this environment makes much labour relations sense. Indeed, it is worth noting that the grievor was rolled over to classified status as of November of 2015.

11Having found no violation of the Collective Agreement or any other agreement between the parties, the grievance is dismissed.