Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Prince et al) v. The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Solicitor General), 2022 CanLII 31343

GSB# 2017-3769

UNION# 2018-0247-0001

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Prince et al)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Brian P. Sheehan

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Dan Sidsworth Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Justin O’Gorman Treasury Board Secretariat Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING

January 18, 2022 (by video conference)

DECISION

1The Employer and the Union at the Brantford Jail agreed to participate in the Expedited Mediation/Arbitration process in accordance with the negotiated Protocol. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol. Suffice to say, that the parties have agreed to a True Mediation/Arbitration process wherein each party provides the Arbitrator with their submissions setting out the facts and the authorities they respectively will rely upon. This decision is issued in accordance with the Protocol and with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement; and it is without prejudice or precedent.

2This group grievance alleges a violation of the collective agreement and the Employment Standards Act in relation to the purported failure of the Employer to provide the grievors meal breaks and rest periods. Specifically, the grievance states:

Our employer at the Brantford Jail has not provided us with meal breaks during any shift we have worked over the course of our career at the Brantford Jail. We have continued to work shifts without being relieved of duties for eating/rest periods. Our employer has not given us an eating/rest period of at least 30 minutes at intervals that would result in us working not more than 5 (five) consecutive hours.

3The Employer asserts that the grievance should be dismissed on account of timeliness. Specifically, the Employer relies on the fact that these grievances would relate to the period when the Brantford Jail was in operation, prior to it being ostensibly closed as of the end of 2017. Accordingly, given that the grievance was not filed until February 15, 2018, it is well outside the time frames for filing a grievance under the Collective Agreement.

4Upon reviewing the undisputed facts in this matter, it is my view that the Employer’s position asserting that the grievances ought to be dismissed on account of timeliness should be upheld. In this regard, it is noteworthy that there is a complete absence of particulars regarding the specific dates that the grievors have alleged that they were not provided a meal break or an appropriate rest period. Additionally, given the timing of the closing of the Brantford Jail and the filing date of the grievance, it is clear that the grievance was filed in an untimely manner pursuant to Article 22 of the collective agreement. Additionally, there is no basis for the exercise of the statutory discretion to provide relief against the failure to file the grievance in a timely fashion.

5Against the above background, the grievance is, hereby, dismissed.