GSB# 2022-11487

UNION# 2022-0616-0108

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Lamothe)

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 Labour Strategy & Employee Transition Manager

HEARING

September 12 and December 12, 2024

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.

7At the time of filing of his grievance dated November 16, 2022 Greg Lamothe was a Fixed Term ("FXT") Correctional Officer ("CO") at the North Bay Jail. The grievance claims that the Employer breached Article 2 of the Collective Agreement when it allegedly unfairly applied a Memorandum of Agreement such that the grievor's ability to progress in FXT seniority was impaired. By way of remedy the grievor seeks full redress.

8The situation arose after the Union and Employer had reached a Memorandum of Agreement regarding the North Bay Capital Project on June 16, 2022 (the "MOA"). As renovation was going to be undertaken at the North Bay Jail, a portion of that jail's inmates were to be temporarily moved to the Central North Correctional Centre ("CNCC") and the Monteith Correctional Complex ("Monteith"). The parties agreed to try to minimize the impact of the capital project on FXT COs' hours at the North Bay Jail by permitting individuals to request temporary placements in one of three jails: the Fort Francis Jail, Kenora Jail and Monteith Correctional Complex, where the Employer had determined there was a need. The MOA outlined in detail how the process would work including that employees would make requests for temporary placement in one of the three identified institutions or in any other institutions; eligibility for certain expenses if the Employer determined that there was a need at the three specifically identified institutions; that FXT COs on temporary placement would remain eligible for rollover at the North Bay Jail at any time during the placement; and so on. The parties also agreed that any disputes that could not be resolved would be decided by the Arbitrator assigned to the Transition Med Arb process.

9North Bay Jail FXT COs were expected to make transfer requests if they wanted to be considered for temporary placements. The parties had agreed that if more employees than the Employer could spare, or who wanted to go to a particular institution, expressed interest in temporarily transferring out of the North Bay Jail, the Employer would choose based on seniority. It was up to a receiving institution to indicate how many, if any, FXT COs it could utilize for the temporary placements.

10The grievor never made a formal transfer request to be considered for temporary placement. He sent a series of emails to the Employer asking questions about Central North Correctional Centre, Monteith, and the Sudbury Jail.

11Ultimately the Employer allowed three FXT COs to transfer out of the North Bay Jail on temporary placements. Two of the FXT COs went to the Kenora Jail. While they had less seniority than did the grievor, he had in any event not expressed any interest in going to that institution. One FXT CO went to Monteith. That individual had already requested to transfer before the grievor was expressing interest in Monteith, but also had approximately 475 hours greater seniority than did the grievor. Thus, even if the grievor had formally requested to transfer to Monteith, and had he done so at the same time as had the other individual, that person would have been chosen based on having greater seniority.

12Having considered the facts and heard the parties' submissions I cannot find any breach of the MOA, or any Collective Agreement provision. As such, this grievance is dismissed.