GSB# 2014-4059; 2014-4249; 2014-4326; 2014-4327; 2014-4328; 2014-4329; 2014-4330; 2014-4334; 2014-4335; 2014-4501; 2014-4502

UNION# 2014-0534-0026; 2014-0534-0028; 2014-0534-0031; 2014-0534-0032; 2014-0534-0033; 2014-0534-0034; 2014-0534-0035; 2014-0534-0039; 2014-0534-0040; 2014-0534-0041; 2014-0534-0042

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Askarzada et al)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services)

Employer

BEFORE

Daniel Harris Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Seung Chi Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Andrew Lynes Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel

HEARING

August 23, 2018

DECISION

1This matter came back on for hearing on August 23, 2018. It follows a decision dated July 17, 2018. By that decision the Employer was ordered to re-run a job competition from October 2014, the results of which the Union grieved on behalf of a number of members. There were originally nine (9) grievors. Due to the passage of time, there are currently five (5).

2My decision of July 17, 2018 was made under the authority of Article 22.16, which mandates that the purpose of a mediation/arbitration thereunder is to resolve the grievances in an expeditious and informal manner.

3The decision of July 17, 2018 was made in the context of the Employer’s submissions that it was prepared to re-run the job competition. I remitted the logistics of re-running the competition back to the parties. This decision is necessitated by the parties’ inability to agree on those logistics.

4Specifically, the Union insists, on behalf of the remaining grievors, that the incumbents be compelled to re-compete for the jobs they were awarded almost four (4) years ago. It provided jurisprudence where competitions were ordered to be re-run and dealt with who would be eligible to participate. None of those cases resemble this situation.

5Here, the Employer submitted that it would re-run the job competition in accordance with the Board’s jurisprudence. It suggested that it would likely establish a benchmark score and said that anyone achieving that score would be placed in the position. It proposed that the incumbents not be required to compete. In effect, positions would be created for the successful grievors. As I understand it, there is a reasonably frequent turnover in these positions. Undeterred by this proposal, the Union has insisted that the incumbents, also OPSEU members, be required to re-compete for these positions. That is, positions they have held for close to four years.

6In my view there is no labour relations purpose in requiring the incumbents to go through such a process, given the Employer’s proposal. The grievors may re-compete, and, if successful, be placed in the positions. If any of them feel that the new competition was unfairly run, I remain seized to deal with their complaints.

7With respect to the latter, it is for the Employer to run the competition in accordance with the Board’s jurisprudence. It is not for me to micro-manage that in advance. If there are complaints, I will hear and determine them.