GSB# 2021-0078

UNION# 2021-0234-0020

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Brar)

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 Ministry of the Solicitor General Manager, Employee Transition Unit

HEARING

July 27, 2021 and October 4, 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.

7Kamalveer Brar is a fixed term Correctional Officer at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex (Maplehurst). He filed a grievance dated March 17, 2021 claiming that the Employer has breached various provisions of the collective agreement by failing to give him credit for all the time that he had worked at the Ontario Correctional Institute (OCI).

8The grievor had been a Correctional Officer (CO) at OCI beginning on March 12, 2018. He requested a leave of absence, and when his request was denied, he resigned from his employment at OCI on March 4, 2019. On October 7, 2020 he became a fixed term CO at Maplehurst. Mr. Brar wishes to have his service at OCI added to his current service at Maplehurst for the purpose of the calculation of his total hours worked.

9When Mr. Brar resigned on March 4, 2019, that resulted in the termination of his service pursuant to Article 18.4 of the collective agreement. Article 18.4 states that “Continuous service shall be deemed to have terminated if: (a) an employee resigns or retires;…”. In accordance with Article 18.4, the grievor’s resignation deems his continuous service up to that point to have terminated.

13This issue has been determined by the Board on a number of occasions including in the following decisions: OPSEU (Wiles) v. Ontario (MCSCS), GSB#2016-0300, 2016-0695, 2016-0696, December 6, 2016 (Briggs); OPSEU (Sutherland) v. Ontario (MCSCS), GSB#2016-0461, September 11, 2017 (Briggs); and, OPSEU (Bourgeois) v. Ontario (MCSCS), GSB#2017-0503, November 6, 2017 (Briggs). Nothing on the facts before me in this case makes the grievor’s situation much different from those cases. The resignation in 2019 caused a break in his service, so any time that the grievor worked at OCI prior to his resignation cannot be counted as part of his continuous service.

14Having considered the facts and submissions of the parties, and for the reasons outlined above, this grievance is denied.