GSB#2020-1234; 2021-1677

UNION#2020-0229-0048; 2021-0229-0066

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Balazs)

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, November 1, 2022 and February 23, 2023

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.

7I issued a decision dated November 8, 2022 (Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Balazs) v Ontario (Solicitor General), 2022 CanLII 122284 (ON GSB) (the "November 2022 decision"), dismissing two grievances filed by Thomas Balazs, a Correctional Officer who had been working at the Ontario Correctional Institute (OCI) in Brampton. This decision should be read in conjunction with the November 2022 decision.

8On July 9, 2020 Mr. Balazs had filed Grievance No. 2020-0229-0048 claiming breaches of various provisions of the collective agreement as the grievor stated that the Employer was denying his claim for kilometric rate reimbursement after he had attended OCI on May 15, 2020 to collect work items required for his temporary relocation to Central North Correctional Centre (CNCC) in Penetanguishene.

9On August 31, 2021 Mr. Balazs had filed Grievance No. 2021-0229-0066 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 was claiming meal allowances, travel time, kilometric rates, and other related expenses during his temporary relocation, which he claimed were set out in Memoranda of Agreements dated May 1 and May 21, 2020.

10Since the issuance of the November 2022 decision the Union has brought to my attention that there was a factual error in para. 13, which had stated as follows:

13If any relocated employee had to return to OCI to retrieve their personal effects and PPE, the Employer had 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. However, Mr. Balazs, who is a classified CO, had to make a special arrangement with his manager at CNCC as to how his retrieval of his items would be managed. The grievor was given both duty time and a Ministry vehicle to travel to OCI and return to CNCC. As such, he in fact received more than did his colleagues who had relocated to MHCC, as they did not get a Ministry vehicle for their travel to collect their personal belongings.

(Emphasis added)

11The parties have advised me that the grievor was afforded four hours of duty time to travel to OCI to pick up his personal effects and/or PPE, and he did not use a Ministry vehicle, but instead used his own vehicle for the trip.

12However, even considering the changes of these facts, the situation remains that Mr. Balazs still received more than his colleagues who had relocated to the Maplehurst Correctional Complex in Milton, as they received two hours duty time for their travel to collect their personal belongings.

13Therefore, even having considered the corrected facts presented, for the reasoning already outlined in the November 2022 decision, these grievances remain dismissed.