GSB# 2001-0062; 2001-0066; 2001-0067; 2001-0068; 2001-0070; 2002-3236; 2003-2169; 2004-3396; 2005-2498

UNION# 2001-0521-0006; 2001-0521-0002; 2001-0521-0004; 2001-0521-0005; 2001-0521-0010; 2002-0359-0047; 2000-0359-0024; 2005-0119-0003; 2005-0582-0116

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Rainhard et al)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Solicitor General)

Employer

BEFORE

Ken Petryshen

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Christopher Bryden Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Counsel

FOR THE EMPLOYER

George Parris Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel

HEARING

August 5, 2020 (via teleconference call)

DECISION

1This matter involves a number of grievances filed by employees in different classifications who claim entitlement to the Custodial Responsibility Allowance (“CRA”). This proceeding has been ongoing for some time. The parties had agreed to focus first on whether individuals employed as Electronic Monitoring Officers (“EMOs”) are entitled to the CRA and addressed this issue by proceeding in the following way. The Union filed particulars setting out the duties and responsibilities of the six EMOs and the parties made submissions at a hearing on whether the EMOs were entitled to the CRA based on the Union’s best case as reflected in the particulars. The Employer’s objections to the grievances were put aside for the time being. After considering the submissions made by counsel, I determined that the six EMOs were not entitled to the CRA.

2This then left for determination the grievances filed by employees claiming entitlement to the CRA who were employed in other jobs. I discussed this matter with counsel during a conference call on April 24, 2017. It was agreed that the outstanding grievances would be addressed in a manner similar to the way the grievances of the six EMOs had been addressed. The only difference was that the outstanding grievances would be addressed by written submissions.

3Given that counsel for the Union has changed, counsel took the opportunity to further discuss the process for addressing the outstanding grievances during the conference call held on August 5, 2020. The Union has filed a brief with particulars setting out the duties and responsibilities of employees occupying the following positions: Temporary Absence Pass Officers/Coordinators; Classification Officers; Intermittent Coordinators; Library Technician 3; Grounds/Maintenance Worker; Cleaners 2; Cook 2; and Laundry Worker 3. The Union’s written submissions are also included in the brief. At this stage, it will be assumed that the particulars accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of these positions. The Employer has agreed to file its written submissions by no later than October 16, 2020. The Union will then have until November 6, 2020, to file written reply submissions. Once the written submissions are completed, I will be in a position to review them and provide the parties with a decision.

4Since the original group of CRA grievances was filed, additional grievances of a similar nature have been filed. I understand the Union has an interest in advancing the additional grievances soon and that Union counsel will contact Employer counsel to discuss process issues.