GSB# 2023-01663

UNION# 2023-5112-0078

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Blacquiere)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Brian P. Sheehan

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Richard Dionne Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Emily Lewis Treasury Board Secretariat Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING

October 10, 2023

Decision

1The Employer and the Union at the Toronto South Detention Centre 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, as such, it is without prejudice or precedent.

2The grievor is employed as a Correctional Officer 2 at the Toronto South Detention Centre (TSDC).

3In the fall of 2022, the Employer made available to Correctional Officers, the Wounded Warriors Canada- Before Operational Stress (BOS) mental health on-line training program. Staff were advised that they could complete the training program, which consisted of 8 one-hour self-directed modules either at home or at work.

4On March 17, 2023, the Employer sent out a memo to staff advising that if they completed the program at home, they would receive compensation of 12 hours overtime.

5The grievor completed the BOS training at work on July 6, 2023, because she did not have a computer at home.

6The grievor claims she had a conversation about the training that same day with Sergeant David Cranley, an Institutional Training Manager at TSDC. According to the grievor, Sergeant Cranley advised the grievor if she sought to be paid for completing the course, she should do it again at home. The grievor claims that she completed the training the following day using her "smart phone". However, the grievor was not able to receive confirmation of the completion of the course on July 7, 2023, because the software indicated that she had already completed the course the previous day. Nevertheless, the grievor submitted the certificate dated July 6 to Sergeant Cranley, and she signed the overtime sheet for 12-hours overtime.

7On August 3, 2023, the grievor emailed Sergeant Cranley inquiring if he had been in touch with Deputy Superintendent Shao regarding approval for her being compensated for taking the course at home on July 7, 2023.

8Sergeant Cranley, in a reply email dated August 3, 2023, indicated to the grievor that he did speak to the Deputy Superintendent, and that she would not be compensated for taking the course again at home as her certificate indicated a completion date of July 6, 2023, rather than a non-workday as was required.

9While the frustration of the grievor is at one level understandable, it is my view upon reviewing the relevant facts, that there is no basis for the grievance to succeed. It would appear without dispute that compensation for taking the BOS course outside of work was predicated on the employee being issued a certificate indicating that the course had been completed on a non-workday. Absent such a certificate being issued, the Employer would not have a basis to confirm that the employee actually completed the course outside of work. Because the grievor had been issued the certificate for taking the course at work on July 6^th, the system would not recognize or issue a certificate with a date of July 7, 2023, and the grievor was advised by the administrator that the date on the certificate could not be changed.

10Moreover, even if it was accepted that the grievor did complete the course fully a second time on July 7^th, there is no basis to suggest that she was entitled to be paid with respect to completing the course. The Employer's offer was that an employee had the option of completing the program at work or at home. The grievor took the option of doing it at work and was paid for doing so. It arguably belies common sense that the Employer would have made an unequivocal representation to the grievor that she would receive additional compensation for completing the course a second time, and the submitted facts do not suggest otherwise.

11In light of the above reasoning, the grievance is, hereby, dismissed.