GSB# 2023-01319

UNION# 2023-0108-0035

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Peltier-St. Louis)

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 Treasury Board Secretariat Ministry of the Solicitor General Manager, Labour Strategy & Employee Transition

HEARING

December 8, 2023 and February 28, 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.

7Wade Peltier-St. Louis is a Correctional Officer 2 (“CO 2”) at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre (“EMDC”). On May 24, 2023 Mr. Peltier-St. Louis filed a grievance claiming a breach of Article 2 of the collective agreement. The grievor claims that he was told via email and in writing that he could take a leave and return to his former position without loss of time, however that did not occur. He seeks to be made whole regarding vacation, statutory holidays, accumulated hours, a full time position and pension contributions.

8This is Mr. Peltier-St. Louis’ second grievance about the same issue. In an earlier grievance, filed on March 31, 2021, the grievor made essentially the same claim, which was addressed in a decision of this Board dated April 14, 2023. It appears that soon after that decision issued dismissing his grievance, Mr. Peltier-St. Louis filed the current grievance.

9In Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Peltier-St. Louis) v Ontario (Solicitor General), 2023 CanLII 37592 (ON GSB), I fully addressed the facts before me, the relevant collective agreement provision, the OPS policy, Regulation, and Compensation Directive and dismissed the grievance. The issue addressed in that decision was whether, having taken an approved leave of absence from his regular classified CO 2 position at the EMDC in order to take a full time job as a constable at the OPP, then having resigned from that job and returning to the EMDC, the grievor should have been permitted to retain his regular classified CO 2 position. As well, the issue was whether the grievor, upon his return, should have been credited with his previous service and seniority, along with other attendant benefits. For all the reasons outlined in the 2023 decision, I found that Mr. Peltier-St. Louis could not be returned to his EMDC job as a regular service CO 2 with his accumulated seniority and service.

10At the hearing regarding the grievor’s second grievance on the same issue, the Employer made a motion for dismissal of the current grievance on the basis that the Grievance Settlement Board has already addressed the issue and that the matter is now res judicata.

11Having heard the submissions of the parties, it is clear that the grievor is seeking to re-litigate his earlier grievance after having received the April 14, 2023 decision just prior to the filing of this grievance. It is a waste of legal and administrative resources for both the parties and the Board to have to consider in a new grievance a matter that is between the same parties, relating to the same set of facts, and which has already been decided through the adjudicative process. As there has to be finality once a grievance has been addressed on its merits, I uphold the Employer’s motion, find that this matter is res judicata, and hereby dismiss this grievance as the issue is one that has already been decided with respect to this individual.