GSB#2017-0535

UNION# 2017-0234-0071

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Vanderyt)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)

Employer

BEFORE

Brian P. Sheehan

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Gregg Gray Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Michelle LaButte Treasury Board Secretariat Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING DATE

January 11, 2018

DECISION

1The Employer and the Union at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex agreed to participate in the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance with the negotiated Protocol. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol. Suffice to say, that the parties have agreed to a True Mediation-Arbitration process, wherein each party provides the Arbitrator with their submissions setting out the facts and the authorities they would respectively rely upon. This decision is issued in accordance with the Protocol and with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement, and it is without prejudice or precedent.

2This grievance concerns the appropriate rate of pay for Catherine Vanderyt (the “grievor”) in her current position as a Volunteer Services Coordinator at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex.

3In March 2017, the grievor, who is a long service employee with the Employer, was advised that she was the successful applicant for a posting for a Volunteer Services Coordinator position. At that time, the grievor’s position was that of a Rehabilitation Officer 2.

4The March 21, 2017 letter formally offering the Volunteer Services Coordinator position to the grievor indicated that her weekly rate of pay would be $1325.01. The start date for the grievor to commence working in the Volunteer Services Coordinator position was set out as April 10, 2017.

5The grievor did not sign the March 21, 2017 offer letter, as she was of the view that given her years of experience with the Employer, she was entitled to be paid at the top rate on the salary range for the Volunteer Services Coordinator position.

6It is noted that there was a clear clerical error in the March 21, 2017 offer letter as it erroneously indicated that the grievor's work location would be the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre.

7Notwithstanding the fact that the grievor did not execute the March 21, 2017 offer letter, she commenced working in the Volunteer Services Coordinator position on April 10, 2017.

8On April 11, 2017, a revised offer letter regarding the Volunteer Services Coordinator position was forwarded to the grievor. That letter indicated the grievor’s weekly rate of pay would be $1295.02. That rate of pay constitutes Step 4 on the salary range for the Volunteer Services Coordinator position under the collective agreement.

9The grievor executed the April 11, 2017 offer letter against the backdrop that she was advised that if she did not sign the letter, the Volunteer Services Coordinator position would be offered to another employee.

10The relevant wording in the collective agreement pertaining to the appropriate rate of pay for an employee in the case of a promotion is Article 7.1.2 which reads as follows:

Article 7 – Pay Administration

7.1.2 An employee who is promoted shall receive that rate of pay in the salary range of the new classification which is the next higher to his or her present rate of pay, except that:

(a) where such a change results in an increase of less than three percent (3%) he or she shall receive the next higher salary rate again, which amount will be considered as a one-step increase;

(b) a promotional increase shall not result in the employee’s new salary rate exceeding the maximum of the new salary range except where permitted by salary note.

11There is no dispute that the current rate of pay received by the grievor (Step 4) is in accordance with the requirements of the collective agreement.

12The grievor is of the view, however, that the rate of pay is not fair in the circumstances. In this regard, she relied on the fact that a coworker who has considerably less overall years of service with the Employer, and who had recently been awarded a Volunteer Services Coordinator position, receives a higher rate of pay (Step 6). That individual’s prior position before becoming a Volunteer Services Coordinator was a Correctional Officer. There is no dispute that in accordance with the wording of Article 7.1.2, that employee is being paid at the appropriate step of the salary range for the Volunteer Services Coordinator position.

13The grievor’s perception of being treated unfairly is, at one level, understandable. She is being compensated less than an employee in the same position as her who has considerably less years of service with the Employer. At the end the day, however, the remedial authority of an arbitrator only arises if, in fact, there has been a violation of the collective agreement. In this regard, there is no basis, whatsoever, to suggest that the Employer is violating the collective agreement with respect to the rate of pay she is currently receiving. The fact that another employee under the collective agreement is receiving a different rate of pay does not, in itself, give rise to a claim that the grievor is not being properly compensated under the collective agreement. Moreover, in the case at hand, it would appear that there is no dispute that the employee in question is, in fact, being paid the appropriate rate of pay in accordance with the relevant provisions of the collective agreement.

14The grievor also asserted a lack of good faith on the part of the Employer on account of the fact that she started in the Volunteer Services Coordinator position on April 10, 2017 without being provided a proper offer of employment letter; and that, such an offer letter was not forwarded to her until April 11, 2017. The fact that the revised offer letter was not formally provided to the grievor until a day after she commenced working in the Volunteer Services Coordinator position does not, in any way, suggest that the Employer acted in bad faith. The grievor raised an issue regarding the appropriate rate of pay. That matter was reviewed by the Employer; and a subsequent revised offer letter was forwarded to her, which she voluntarily executed.

15Accordingly, in light of the above, the grievance is, hereby, dismissed.