GSB#2020-1266; 2021-1284

UNION#2020-0229-0054; 2021-0229-0062

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Scanes)

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

September 28, 2022 and November 1, 2022

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 the Solicitor General as well as the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services restructuring initiatives around the Province. Through the MERC (Ministry Employee 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.

7Dejan Scanes is a FXT Correctional Officer at the Ontario Correctional Institute (OCI) in Brampton. On July 12, 2020 he filed Grievance No. 2020-0229-0054 claiming breaches of various provisions of the collective agreement as Mr. Scanes stated that the Employer was denying his claim for kilometric rate reimbursement after he had attended OCI on May 15, 2020 in his personal vehicle to collect work items required for his temporary relocation to Central North Correctional Centre (CNCC) in Penetanguishene.

8On August 28, 2021 Mr. Scanes filed Grievance No. 2021-0229-0062 alleging that the Employer had breached various provisions of the collective agreement by failing to provide him with compensation equal to his colleagues during the temporary closure of OCI, and while he was working at CNCC. In particular, the grievor is claiming meal allowances, travel time, kilometric rates, and other related expenses during his temporary relocation, which he claims were set out in Memoranda of Agreements dated May 1 and May 21, 2020.

9In and around April 2020 there was a COVID-19 outbreak at OCI. Given the severity of the situation, the Employer determined to temporarily close the facility and move all the inmates to the Toronto South Detention Centre. Pursuant to a later decision, the inmates were moved again, this time to Maplehurst Correctional Complex (MHCC) in Milton, and the Employer determined that OCI staff should follow their work and temporarily relocate to MHCC. On May 1, 2020 the Union and Employer reached a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to govern the entitlements of those employees impacted for the duration of the temporary closure of the OCI.

10Pursuant to the MOA, in section 7, OCI staff (whether FXT or Regular) were offered a time limited opportunity to indicate their interest in a temporary relocation to other institutions. At section 7(3) it stated:

3. Expenses for travel, meals, and accommodation will not be reimbursed for Temporary relocation initiated by an employee

11In accordance with the terms of the MOA, Mr. Scanes sought temporary relocation to CNCC in Penetanguishene, and his request was granted. He therefore had no right to any claims for travel, meals, or any other expenses related to his temporary relocation to CNCC.

12Had he wished to do so, the grievor had the automatic right to follow his work with the OCI inmates to MHCC when they were temporarily relocated to that institution. According to section 4(1) of the MOA, the parties had agreed that during the period of the temporary closure of OCI and relocation to MHCC, “all expenses for travel, kilometric rates and meals would be reimbursed in accordance with the OPS Travel, Meals and Hospitality Directive and OPSEU Correctional Bargaining Unit Collective Agreement”. Thus, had the grievor moved with his work to MHCC, he would have been entitled to these expenses. He did not follow his work: instead he asked for the temporary relocation to work at CNCC, and was therefore not entitled to the expense claims he makes in his second grievance.

13If any relocated employee had to return to OCI to retrieve their personal effects and PPE, the Employer advised on how that was to be handled. In that instance, those who had relocated to MHCC were allowed duty time to go and retrieve their personal effects. They did not get additional mileage or meal allowances to attend at OCI. Mr. Scanes had to make a special arrangement with his manager at CNCC as to how his retrieval of his items would be managed. As an FXT employee, the grievor was scheduled to go to OCI to pick up his personal belongings during duty time, and it was considered his duty for the day. As such, the grievor was given a full shift of paid time to travel to OCI and return to CNCC. Based on the evidence, he was treated exactly as his colleagues who had relocated to MHCC were treated.

14Having considered the submissions of the parties, and for the reasons outlined above, these two grievances are hereby dismissed.