GSB# 2024-01475

UNION# 2024-0225-0001

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Manson)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Dale Hewat

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Arielle Lewis Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Michelle LaButte Ministry of the Solicitor General Legal Services Branch Manager

HEARING

February 3 and May 27, 2025

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.

7Chris Manson began his career as a Probation and Parole Officer ("PPO") on a Fixed-Term contract in May of 2013. In 2016, he was rolled over to a full-time permanent PPO position in London, Ontario, considered by the Employer to be his home office. Some time in 2021, the Employer developed an initiative to temporarily hire other PPO positions focussed on high-risk clients. Mr. Manson applied for one of these new PPO positions, was a successful candidate and transferred to Walkerton, Ontario in order to perform the job.

8Mr. Manson has been living in Walkerton ever since he moved there in 2021 and has established roots there by marrying and starting a family. While his home position was London, Mr. Manson was open with his manager that, instead, he wanted a permanent home position in either Walkerton or Owen Sound, Ontario.

9On April 28, 2024, a vacancy was posted as a roll over PPO position in Owen Sound. Although Mr. Manson was aware that the vacancy would occur because of another PPO retiring, he did not submit an Expression of Interest for the posting. Mr. Manson claims that he was told by his manager that he was not eligible for the position as his home position was in London, Ontario. On June 5, 2024 another person with less seniority than Mr. Manson was awarded the posted PPO position. On June 20, 2024, Mr. Manson filed a Grievance claiming he had been misinformed about his eligibility to apply for the posted PPO position and that he should have been considered for the vacant position.

10Pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the parties with respect to the Probation and Parole Officer Recruitment Process (PPORP) dated November 01, 2016, there are three methods of recruitment for Regular (classified) Probation Officer vacancies:

1. Lateral Transfer (Article 6.6.1)

2. Appendix COR16/Appendix COR 19 – Rollovers or Article 8.6.3 (See Notes 3, 4, and 5 below)

3. Competitions (Article 6)

11Specifically, in note 4, it states that "Article 8.6.3 may be used where an employee has successfully competed for a temporary probation and parole officer position and has worked in a probation and parole officer position for 18 continuous months at the time the vacancy arises."

12The MOA states that a PPO will be required to identify themselves via an Expression of Interest that they are currently working in a PPO position and have done so for a continuous 18 months and were successful in a PPO competition for a temporary assignment. In this case, while Mr. Manson may have been given incorrect information from his manager about the eligibility for the vacancy, Mr. Manson, did not ask for clarification from the Union. In this case, Mr. Manson would have been better off filing an Expression of Interest for the vacancy in question so that his intentions were known. Having not done so, the Employer was not obliged to consider Mr. Manson as an interested applicant for the vacant position.

13As a result, the Grievance is dismissed.