GSB# 2018-3651

UNION# 2018-0369-0089

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Roberts)

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, Labour Strategy & Employee Transition

HEARING

April 3 and June 20, 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.

7Todd Roberts is a Correctional Officer at the Central North Correctional Centre (CNCC). On October 15, 2018 Mr. Roberts filed a grievance claiming that when calculating his Continuous Service Date (CSD) the Employer had failed to take into account his service as a motor vehicle operator and as a resource technician at the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). By way of remedy, the grievor seeks to have his CSD reinstated to 2009, for missed vacation to be credited to his bank, and $1,000 in damages.

8According to Mr. Roberts he had been employed on a seasonal contract with the MNR as a Resource Technician until he resigned on July 22, 2012. The following day, July 23, 2012, he started at CNCC as a regular Motor Vehicle Operator. He recalls that at the time he carried his CSD with him.

9On March 7, 2014 the grievor provided a letter of resignation to Bill Johnston, Superintendent, CNCC, in which he specifically resigned from the regular service Motor Vehicle Operator job effective that day. On March 10, 2014 Mr. Roberts commenced working as a Fixed Term (FXT) CO at CNCC. At the time he believed he would be able to carry forward his CSD except to the extent that he had taken an unpaid leave of absence for the CO training and if he had any weeks where he worked less than 40 hours a week in his new FXT CO position.

10However, when Mr. Roberts resigned on March 7, 2014, that resulted in the termination of his service pursuant to Article 18.4 of the collective agreement. Article 18.4 states that “Continuous service shall be deemed to have terminated if: (a) an employee resigns or retires;…”. In accordance with Article 18.4, the grievor’s resignation deems his continuous service up to that point to have terminated.

11This issue has been determined by the Board on a number of occasions including in the following decisions: OPSEU (Wiles) v. Ontario (MCSCS), GSB#2016-0300, 2016-0695, 2016-0696, December 6, 2016 (Briggs); OPSEU (Sutherland) v. Ontario (MCSCS), GSB#2016-0461, September 11, 2017 (Briggs); and, OPSEU (Bourgeois) v. Ontario (MCSCS), GSB#2017-0503, November 6, 2017 (Briggs) and many thereafter. Nothing on the facts before me in this case makes the grievor’s situation much different from those cases. The resignation in 2014 caused a break in his service, so any time that the grievor worked at either the MNR (as a seasonal worker) or at CNCC in the regular position of a Motor Vehicle Operator prior to his resignation cannot be counted as part of his continuous service.

12Having considered the facts and submissions of the parties, and for the reasons outlined above, this grievance is denied.