GSB#2013-0183

UNION#2013-5105-0001

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Dewnandan)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Government & Consumer Services)

Employer

BEFORE

Ken Petryshen

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Jane Letton Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Counsel

FOR THE EMPLOYER

George Parris Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel

HEARING

Written submissions were completed on December 4, 2020, and a Conference Call was held on April 13, 2021.

Decision

1I have before me a complaint by the Union that the Employer had failed to comply with certain terms of a Memorandum of Settlement (“MOS”) dated September 23, 2015. The Union made this complaint on behalf of Ms. S. Dewnandan. The Union is seeking a declaration that the MOS had not been complied with. The parties agreed to have this matter heard by means of written submissions.

2The circumstances giving rise to the Union’s complaint originated a number of years ago. Ms. Dewnandan filed a grievance dated February 22, 2013, in which she claimed that the Employer had contravened the Collective Agreement by not placing her in a Payroll Production Analyst (“PPA”) position following a job competition. In order to set the stage for a final resolution, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement dated June 4, 2015. The key feature of the settlement was the agreement to have a meeting for the purpose of providing Ms. Dewnandan with a better understanding of the outcome of the job competition and to discuss job training/shadowing opportunities. Any identified opportunities were to be provided for a fixed period of time and would be included in a separate settlement document. The parties were successful at the meeting in reaching agreement on certain job training/shadowing opportunities and these opportunities are referenced in the MOS which the Union now claims had been breached.

3The Union claims that the Employer had failed to comply with the following three paragraphs of the MOS:

3. The Employer agrees to provide the Grievor with the following courses as they become available:

• Succeeding in the Interview - CFLL-CFLL00705.

• Debunking Interview Myths (Webinar) - CFLL-CFLL00825.

4. The Employer agrees to assign the Grievor to two Branch/Divisional projects, specifically the Client Service Delivery Model Improvement Project and the Day 13/14 review. The Grievor will participate in the projects by working with the assigned PPA leads for the projects.

5. The Employer agrees to provide the Grievor with a PPA job shadowing opportunity from September 21, 2015 to November 20, 2015. The parties further agree to the following conditions as part of the job shadowing opportunity:

a. The Grievor agrees to remain in her home position with no changes to classification or salary. The Grievor will continue to be responsible for her Pay and Benefits Specialist duties, but will have her workload adjusted during the job shadowing opportunity period to take into account that she will be working with a PPA.

b. The Grievor agrees not to complete PPA work independently and must have all work reviewed by a PPA.

c. The Grievor agrees to be assigned to a different PPA at the beginning of each month, allowing the Grievor the opportunity to learn from multiple incumbents. In the event that the assigned PPA is on vacation or off for an extended period of time, the Grievor will be assigned to another PPA.

d. The Grievor agrees to align her work schedule to that of the PPA being shadowed.

4The Union submitted that the Employer did not provide Ms. Dewnandan with a meaningful job shadowing opportunity and that she did not receive interview skills training. Employer counsel argued that the Employer complied with its obligations under the MOS and requested that the Union’s complaint be dismissed.

5I have carefully reviewed the circumstances giving rise to the Union’s complaint as set out in the written material, and the written submissions of counsel. I am satisfied that the written material does not establish that the Employer had contravened the MOS.

6The Employer agreed to provide Ms. Dewnandan with two courses when they became available. At one point, Ms. Dewnandan advised her manager that the courses were full, but that she would register for them as soon as they became available. In late November 2015, she told her manager that she had registered for one of the courses. There is no indication of what efforts Ms. Dewnandan had made to register for the other course. It appears that the only reason for Ms. Dewnandan not taking both courses is that they were unavailable or that she did register for them. It certainly does not appear that the Employer prevented Ms. Dewnandan from taking the courses referenced in paragraph

3 of the MOS. I agree with the Employer that there is no basis for Ms. Dewnandan or the

Union to complain about a breach of paragraph 3 of the MOS.

7Ms. Dewnandan was obviously unhappy with the quality of the job shadowing opportunity made available to her by the Employer. There is no dispute that she was provided with job shadowing. I agree with Union’s submission that a commitment to provide job shadowing can be breached if the opportunity was not a serious one and too limited. However, on the basis of the material before me, I am not prepared to conclude in this case that the Employer had failed to provide Ms. Dewnandan with the job shadowing opportunities contemplated by the MOS.

8For the foregoing reasons, the Union’s complaint alleging a contravention of the MOS is hereby dismissed.