GSB# 2024-00906

UNION# 2024-0248-0069

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Coudenys)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Gail Misra

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Gregg Gray Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Shivani Ramoutar Treasury Board Secretariat Employee Relations Branch Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING

December 4, 2024

Decision

1The Employer and the Union at the Hamilton Wentworth Detention Centre (“HWDC”) agreed to participate in mediation-arbitration in accordance with the Local Mediation-Arbitration Protocol that has been negotiated by the parties. Should mediation not result in resolution of a grievance, pursuant to the Protocol, they have agreed to a mediation-arbitration process by which each party provides the Arbitrator with their submissions setting out their respective facts and the authorities they may be relying upon. This decision is issued in accordance with the Protocol and with Article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement, so that it is without precedent or prejudice to any other matters between the parties, and is issued without detailed written reasons.

2Michael Coudenys is a classified Correctional Officer (“CO”) at the HWDC. On May 29, 2024 Mr. Coudenys filed a grievance claiming violations of Articles 2, 3, and 22 of the Collective Agreement and various policies. He claims that due to the Employer’s negligence and inability to manage its business, he suffered financial hardship when the HWDC failed to pay him monies owing in a timely manner. By way of remedy, the grievor seeks among other things an apology, $10,000 in damages, and interest on money owing to him.

3In or about December 2023 the new pay rates for the Correctional Service Collective Agreement were decided in an interest arbitration award. Thereafter, the Employer issued a chart to indicate how the pay rate adjustments would be implemented, including when the salary rates would be revised for various groups of COR employees. The earliest date was March 14, 2024 for most of the COR employees, with some exceptions. On March 28, 2024 retroactive payments were to be made to all “active” COR employees. Between April 11 and May 23, 2024 retroactive payment corrections and clean up for active COR employees were to be processed. Finally, between June 6 and 20, 2024 retroactive payments were to be processed for inactive or terminated COR employees and any corrections and clean up for the groups of employees were to be done.

4The grievor did not receive his new rate of pay on the March 14, 2024 payroll. On March 12, 2024 he first raised the issue by email with Ontario Shared Services (“OSS”), which is the arm of the government that manages payroll and other related issues. The grievor indicated that he had reviewed his pay rate on his upcoming paycheque and seen that his wage rate did not reflect the wage increase that it should have. He wanted to also ensure that his retroactive pay would be paid out in the near future. It is not clear what the response was at that juncture but it appears that the grievor received some retroactive pay on March 28, 2024, but his wage rate had not yet been changed to reflect the new rate on his regular pay.

5After Mr. Coudenys raised the issue with the HWDC Payroll staff, on May 24, 2024 a ticket was put in for him with OSS. On May 27, 2024 OSS responded directly to the grievor to advise him that OSS had logged his ticket but that since they were currently experiencing a high volume of requests like his, about across the board salary adjustments and/or retroactive payments, their response times may vary. He then heard from OSS that since the grievor had been on a five-week parental leave in December 2023, his was not a straightforward file and had not been dealt with along with most of the other usual employee files. He had been put into a different processing group.

6On June 12, 2024 the grievor contacted the Deputy Superintendent at the HWDC about the issue as he still had not received the new pay rate or all retroactive pay. The Deputy spoke to the HWDC Office Manager, who then escalated the issue to a manager at OSS.

7On June 27, 2024 the Office Manager advised the grievor that she had confirmation from OSS that it had adjusted his pay rate and he would receive retroactive pay as well on his July 4, 2024 pay cheque. Ultimately there was still a small discrepancy between what retroactive pay the grievor was due, and what he had been paid, and that small amount was paid to Mr. Coudenys on his November 7, 2024 pay cheque. I am satisfied that the HWDC had done what it could to try to assist the grievor in getting his wage rate and retroactive pay issues resolved, but the changes that needed to be made were in the hands of OSS.

8The grievor’s complaint is that he and his wife were in the process of selling their home and looking for a new house during the early 2024 period. Since he did not get his wage rate increase in mid-March, he was unable to complete a mortgage pre-approval form as he did not have proof of his updated wage. According to the grievor, the inability to get mortgage pre-approval caused him personal and financial stress, which was why he had filed the grievance in May 2024. In addition, the grievor asserts that since mortgage interest rates began to drop in the period, house prices began to rise, so that by the time he received his mortgage pre-approval, it was “too late” and his family had missed out on several homes they had been interested in. He had to wait several months to move, and the cost of purchasing a new home had risen by $10,000 to $15,000 by that time.

9It is unfortunate that the grievor did not get his wage rate increase on the mid-March payroll, and had to wait until the July 4 payroll for the new rate to be reflected. From the dates that the Employer had provided to the Union and others about when it was likely to be able to process all the changes that had to be made to each COR employee’s pay rate, and to calculate retroactive pay owing to each individual, it was clear that unless one fell into the general straightforward group, it may take more time. As such, from early in the year it was apparent that the process may not be complete until late June 2024. In this instance, it took OSS until the July 4th payroll to fix the grievor’s wage rate. I note that he had received some retroactive pay by late March, and more was paid on July 4th.

10No provision of the Collective Agreement or jurisprudence supports a finding that an employer is liable to pay damages to an employee who is affected by a change in real estate market conditions in circumstances similar to this case. Ultimately, the grievor had to wait three and a half months to see his new rate of pay reflected on his pay cheque. That is not an inordinate amount of time given the many thousands of calculations that OSS had to complete for the COR group of employees. As well, the grievor’s situation of having been off work on paternity leave made his file a little different from others, which was why it had to be flagged for special attention. Undoubtedly his was not the only one in the COR employee group that had special aspects to it.

11While Article 22.18 authorizes an arbitrator to award interest where monetary compensation or damages are found to be owing on a grievance, in this instance I have not found that any compensation or damages are warranted.

12Having considered the evidence, submissions of the parties, and the terms of the Collective Agreement, for the reasons outlined above, I cannot find that the Employer violated the Collective Agreement. The grievance is therefore denied.