GSB# 2023-00848

UNION# 2023-0526-0012

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Giorno et al)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Dale Hewat

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

James Sommerville Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Felix Lau Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel

HEARING

August 11, 2025

Decision

1The Parties submitted a Group Grievance to be determined by way of mediation/arbitration in accordance with Article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement. They agreed that I had jurisdiction to address the Grievance, and requested that I issue a decision without precedent or prejudice, and without extensive reasons. The Parties also waived the time-frame under Article 22.16 for issuing my decision.

2The Employer brought a motion that the case should be dismissed on the basis of a delay approximating 9 years and that the Union has not established a prima facie case of any violation of the Collective Agreement. At the conclusion of our mediation and having heard submissions from both Counsel, I advised the Parties that I would be dismissing the Grievance.

3Earnel Williams, Vanessa Giorno and Joy Webster (the “Grievors”) worked as Court Reporters for the Ministry of the Attorney General (the “Employer’). They were classified as Court Reporter 2 under the Collective agreement and were at the top salary step in 2014.

4On June 9, 2014, the Grievors, along with 96 other employees, received a letter from the Employer advising that their position had been reclassified to a Court Reporter 1 following a review of the Court Reporter 2 job description against the new court transcription production model as well as other emerging operational priorities. The Grievors were advised that this reclassification was made pursuant to Section 7.2.1 of the Collective Agreement.

5Pursuant to Section 7.2.1 the Grievors received salary protection and were told that they would continue to receive salary progression based on merit to the current maximum Court Reporter 2 classification ($1,066.76 per week) and will not receive any further salary progression until such time as the maximum Court Reporter salary exceeds $1,066.76 per week. In 2023, the maximum Court Reporter salary was $981.42 per week which remained below the $1,066.76 cap identified in the June 9, 2014 letter.

6Subsequent to 2014, the Employer created the new position of Court and Client Representative (“CCR”) that formed part of a new courtroom staffing model. The CCR position was designed as a multipurpose role incorporating court reporter services and other court services such as court registrars, court clerks and assisting with financial services. The CCR position is a higher classification and has a higher wage rate than the Court Reporter 1 position. In a memo dated February 15, 2023, the Employer advised that it would be updating the CCR job description and reclassify it to a higher level of OAD 10. On March 20, 2023, the new CCR job description came into effect resulting in the new classification and a pay increase to $32.29 per hour. Staff were told that this change was part of a long-term project in the court system and were encouraged to apply for new full-time CCR positions.

7The Grievors believe that they have been unfairly red-circled at their current wage rate and also claim that they are performing the same job as the CCR position. In addition, the Grievor’s assert that no Court Reporter 1 positions are being filled and as a result, they will never get beyond the salary cap of $1,066.76 per week.

8On May 12, 2023 the Union filed a Group Grievance on behalf of the Grievors alleging a violation of Articles 2 (Management Rights), Article 3 (No Discrimination) along with allegations of violations under the Employment Standards Act, the Ontario Human Rights Code, Occupational Health and Safety Act and any related employment statute or related Employer policy. The Grievance noted that the Grievors had not received an hourly pay increase since January 1, 2012 when their hourly rate was increased from $28.45 to $29.31, where it currently remains.

9In June 2023, Ms. Williams contacted pay and benefits regarding lack of pay increases and was told that she will only receive a further salary progression in accordance with the terms identified in the June 2014 reclassification to Court Reporter 1 letter.

10The Union maintains the position that the Employer violated Articles 2 and 7 of the Collective Agreement when it reclassified the Grievors from Court Reporter 2 to Court Reporter 1 and that there was a violation of Articles 3 and 7 of the Collective Agreement when it red-circled the Grievors’ salary.

Delay

11In this case, the Grievors were given notice on June 11, 2014 under Article 7.2.1 that their positions were being reclassified and that their salary would be red-circled. The Grievance was filed almost nine years later on May 12, 2023, which is a substantial delay. Having taken into consideration the factors as set out in OPSEU (Liantzakis) and Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, 2014 Can LII 70084 (ON GSB) at para 66, I have decided that the time-limit for filing the Grievance should not be extended in this case. Fundamentally the Grievance is a monetary claim concerning a reclassification from 2014. While the Grievors claimed that they only became aware of the salary difference between the Court Report 1 and CCR positions in 2023 which was followed up when Ms. Williams made an inquiry in June 2023, this timing in itself doesn’t justify a claim that there was a violation of Articles 2 ,3 and 7 of the Collective Agreement when they were reclassified and received salary protection in 2014. From my perspective, it is reasonable to assume that any grievance about the 2014 reclassification had been abandoned as there was no indication for close to 9 years that the Grievors disputed the 2014 reclassification. In addition, according to the Board’s established jurisprudence, prejudice can be presumed where the passage of time is significant as noted in OPSEU (Liantakis), supra, and more recently adopted in OPSEU (Bremmer) v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2020 CanLII 14087(On GSB) para 49.

12Having determined that the case should be dismissed for delay, I do not need to make a determination on the Employer’s motion to dismiss for no prima facie case.

13Accordingly, the Grievance is dismissed.