GSB# 2019-1272

UNION# 2019-0234-0199

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Cronin)

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

Michelle LaButte Treasury Board Secretariat Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING

July 10 and September 28, 2020 (by videoconference)

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 (now, the Ministry of the Solicitor General) 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.

7Mark Cronin is a Correctional Officer ("CO") at the Maplehurst Complex. He filed a grievance on July 19, 2019 claiming that contrary to the terms of the current collective agreement, the Employer had miscalculated his hours for the rollover of casuals in December 2011, resulting in a discrepancy in his Continuous Service Date ("CSD"). By way of remedy, the Grievor seeks to have his CSD recalculated in accordance with the most current method of calculation in the collective agreement.

8The Grievor's hours have been reviewed, and it is clear that his CSD is correct based on the collective agreement that was in force at the time, in December 2011 when Mr. Cronin was rolled over from his casual or fixed term status to that of a permanent employee.

9To be clear, if the terms of a collective agreement change in regards to how the CSD is to be calculated, that does not mean that each employee's CSD must be recalculated based on those changes, unless the parties specifically so agree. That is not what the parties agreed to in the current collective agreement. Whatever the regime was at the time that Mr. Cronin was rolled over, he got the benefit of those rules. Once he was rolled over and his CSD at that juncture was determined, it is not subject to change in light of later language that may apply to the calculation of a CSD for current Fixed Term contract COs.

10Having considered the facts, and the submissions of the parties, and for the reasons outlined above, this grievance is dismissed.