GSB# 2019-0669

UNION# 2019-0338-0003

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Jones)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Gail Misra

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Matthew Hrycyna Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Michelle LaButte Treasury Board Secretariat Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING

March 19, 2021 and July 27, 2021

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.

7Glenn Jones was a Probation and Parole Officer in the Barrie office. He filed a grievance dated April 11, 2019 claiming that the Employer had violated Article 20.7 and Appendix 10 of the collective agreement as well as the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) and VEO provisions. By way of remedy, the grievor sought approval of his Transition Exit Request with full right of choice to negotiate options and an exit date prior to December 31, 2019, along with any monies owed.

8Mr. Jones asserts that on January 4, 2019 he filed an application for the TEI with his Area Manager, and receipt was verified by Mr. Martin O'Grady. On March 29, 2019 the grievor was advised by the Assistant Deputy Minister that his TEI request had not been approved at that time.

9The grievor later learned that only one Probation and Parole Officer from his office location was approved for TEI, and that individual was less senior than the grievor. As such, he filed this grievance.

10Following the filing of the grievance, the grievor had his TEI request granted in November 2019 in the course of the Youth Justice Modernization process. As such, following discussions between the grievor and Sandra Harper, Negotiator for the Union, Mr. Jones verbally agreed to withdraw his grievance as his TEI request had been granted. By an email dated December 24, 2019, Ms. Harper advised Bart Nowak, the Manager, Community Safety & Strategic Labour Relations, that Mr. Jones had agreed to withdraw his TEI grievance.

11It would appear that the grievor changed his mind and now claims that he did not want to withdraw his grievance. While that may be the grievor's position, the facts in this case indicate that the grievor received exactly what he had sought in his grievance since his TEI request was granted and he had the right to negotiate options and his exit date prior to December 31, 2019. Since by November 2019 Mr. Jones had his TEI request granted, he had received what he sought in his grievance. His grievance is therefore moot.

12Having considered the facts and submissions of the parties, and for the reasons outlined above, this grievance is dismissed.