GSB# 2018-1910
UNION# 2018-5112-0129
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Stennett)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Solicitor General)
Employer
BEFORE
Gail Misra
Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION
Dan Sidsworth Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Al J. Quinn Ministry of the Solicitor General Senior Employee Transition Advisor
HEARING
April 18 and July 19, 2019
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 these 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.
7Abeko Stennett is a Correctional Officer at the Toronto South Detention Centre. He filed a grievance dated August 7, 2018 claiming that the Employer has breached various provisions of the collective agreement and that his Continuous Service Date ("CSD") in HPRO is incorrect and needs to be adjusted to the correct date.
8The grievor was hired as a fixed term Correctional Officer on December 15, 2014. On March 27, 2017 he was rolled over into permanent status, and his CSD was set at January 19, 2015. Following a request by the grievor for review of his CSD, by a letter dated October 24, 2018, the Employer advised Mr. Stennett that his CSD was January 19, 2015.
9In the course of this hearing, a review of the grievor's records indicates that while he was a fixed term employee, Mr. Stennett had worked 5 weeks in which he did not meet the 40 hours per week requirement in order for those weeks to count towards his CSD. As such, Mr. Stennett's CSD has been accurately calculated as January 19, 2015 rather than December 15, 2014 (which would have been five weeks earlier).
10Article 18.1.1 of the collective agreement addresses "Seniority (Length of Continuous Service). It defines how an employee's length of continuous service accumulates. Article 18.1.1 (b) indicates that the accumulation is "from the date established by adding the actual number of full-time weeks worked by a full-time fixed-term employee during his or her full-time employment back to the first break in employment which is greater than thirteen (13) weeks".
11Since the grievor had five weeks during which he worked less than full time hours, that is, less than 40 hours per week, such weeks cannot count towards the calculation of his CSD.
12Having considered the facts and the submissions of the parties, and for the reason outlined above, this grievance is denied.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 1st day of August, 2019.