GSB# 2018-3299

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

The Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario (Lum-Yip)

Association

• and –

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries)

Employer

BEFORE

Tatiana Wacyk

Arbitrator

FOR THE ASSOCIATION

Kelly Doctor Goldblatt Partners LLP Counsel

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Debra Kyle and Cereise Ross Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel / Articling Student

HEARING

January 7, 2020 (by teleconference)

Interim Decision

1The issue before me is whether the Complainant was entry-level qualified for four identified positions; and therefore, was entitled to be matched to one of those positions through the AMAPCEO Targeted Direct Assignment (“TDA”) process.

2The process for making that determination is set out in Article 27.

3In addition, the parties have agreed to an expedited protocol for the purpose of this matter, and this matter only, and without prejudice or precedent to any other matter.

4Paragraph 11 of that protocol references the Chart AMAPCEO is to provide to the Employer, in preparation for litigation of this matter. It states:

11. Within thirty (30) calendar days of this protocol being finalized, AMAPCEO will advise the Employer which position is to be litigated first; and will also disclose a chart setting out the selection criteria for the First Position in the left column, and copy-pasted excerpts of the relevant Employee Form (“EF”) and the Complainant’s job description(s) in the second column to demonstrate how, in AMAPCEO’s view, the Complainant met the requisite “entry-level qualifications” of the position at the time he applied for the position.

5This decision determines whether it is open to AMAPCEO to include in its Chart, and therefore before me, job descriptions of many of the Complainant’s previous positions, which were not before the decision-makers when he was found not to have met the entry-level qualifications, as required pursuant to Article 27.

6I find it is not appropriate for AMAPCEO to include the Complainant’s prior job descriptions, which were not before the decision-makers when he was found not to have met the entry-level qualifications, as required pursuant to Article 27, as evidence in the litigation of this grievance.

7Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, my reasons for this determination will be included in my final decision in this matter.