GSB# 2019-1460; 2023-01220; 2023-01437

UNION# 2019-0467-0031; 2023-0467-0030; 2023-0467-0033

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Tedford)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Ken Petryshen

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Ed Holmes Ryder Wright Holmes Bryden Nam LLP Counsel

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Braden MacLean Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel

HEARING

October 8, 2025

Decision

1The three grievances before me were filed on behalf of Mr. R. Tedford, a Correctional Officer (“CO”) employed as a Canine Handler. Mr. Tedford is assigned to the Eastern Region, working out of the Quinte Detention Centre. In the grievance dated August 6, 2019, Mr. Tedford wrote that he was denied the opportunity to perform bargaining unit work on or about July 30, 2019, when the Employer elected to use the canine search services of the Canadian Border Services Agency at the Algoma Treatment and Remand Centre. Mr. Tedford made similar claims in his other two grievances. In a grievance dated June 20, 2023, he wrote that on April 12, 2023, the Greater Sudbury Police Service and the Ontario Provincial Police were used by the Employer to conduct canine searches at the Sudbury Jail. In his grievance dated July 20, 2023, Mr. Tedford wrote that on July 14, 2023, the Employer utilized the canine search services of an outside agency at the Thunder Bay Correctional Centre. There is no dispute that the Employer engaged the canine services from outside agencies as described in the grievances. The parties agreed that these grievances will be heard pursuant to the procedure in article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement.

2The Employer’s Canine Unit has been operating since at least 2012. The use of Canine Handlers is referenced in the Institutional Services Policy and Procedures Manual. In essence, canine teams are used to conduct either routine or non routine searches at provincial correctional institutions at the discretion of the Superintendent. At the time of the grievances, the Employer had five COs trained as Canine Handlers who are regionally assigned. In addition to the assignment of Mr. Tedford to the Eastern Region - Quinte Detention Centre, two COs are assigned to the Western Region, one in London and one in Windsor. Two COs are assigned to the Central Region, one at the Maplehurst Correctional Centre and one at the Toronto South Detention Centre. There were no Canine Handlers assigned to the Northern Region. As the descriptions of his grievances illustrate, Mr. Tedford in effect claims that, in the absence of Canine Handlers assigned to the Northern Region, he should have been offered the canine search work at the institutions in the Northern Region that had been assigned to outside agencies. Subsequent to the filing of the grievances, there are now two COs trained as Canine Handlers assigned to the Northern Region, one at the Thunder Bay Correctional Centre and one at the Sudbury Jail.

3The material before me illustrates that the Superintendents at provincial correctional institutions in the Northern Region often used the canine services of outside agencies. Particularly during the time frame of the grievances, the use of the Ministry’s Canine Unit to perform canine searches in the Northern Region was a relatively rare occurrence. The Canine Unit operated on a regional basis and the Canine Handlers were primarily utilized for conducting searches in the Region in which they were located. Given the distance involved and perhaps the need to conduct a very urgent search, it is not surprising that there evolved a general practice of using outside agencies to conduct canine searches in the Northern Region.

4The Union took the position that Mr. Tedford was available to perform the canine searches at issue and that he should have been given the opportunity to perform that bargaining unit work. The Union argued that Mr. Tedford should be compensated for his losses. In support of the Union’s position, counsel referred me to the following decisions: OPSEU (Megahy et al.) and Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, 2007 CanLII 40532 (ON GSB R. Brown); and, OPSEU (Charles et al.) and Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, 2011 CanLII 60316 (ON GSB Herlich).

5The Employer took the position that it did not contravene the Collective Agreement when it utilized an outside agency to perform the canine searches referred to in the grievances. Employer counsel made a number of submissions in support of this position, two of which I will reference. Counsel argued that the canine searches at issue did not constitute bargaining unit work because there was a practice of not assigning such searches in the Northern Region to members of the Canine Unit. Counsel also submitted that the circumstances here warrant the conclusion that the implied prohibition on assigning work outside of the bargaining unit does not assist the Union in this instance because the general practice in the Northern Region was to assign canine searches to outside agencies. Employer counsel relied on the following decisions: OPSEU (Union) and Ministry of the Solicitor General, 2019 CanLII 126477 (ON GSB Petryshen); C.U.P.E, Local 400 v. Ottawa Hospital, 1999 CarswellOnt 7166 (Kates); and, OPSEU (Butters) and Liquor Control Board of Ontario, 2018 CanLII 77319 (ON GSB Carrier).

6In my view, the work of performing canine searches is bargaining unit work. The Canine Unit has existed for many years and its Canine Handlers have been regularly engaged in performing searches in the Eastern, Central and Western Regions. A conclusion that the work of performing canine searches at provincial correctional institutions is bargaining unit work, by itself, does not mean that the Employer is precluded from assigning that work to outside agencies. The Collective Agreement does not contain a specific provision prohibiting the Employer from assigning bargaining unit work to persons not in the bargaining unit. However, the GSB has held that there is an implied term in the Collective Agreement that generally prohibits the Employer from assigning bargaining unit work to persons outside of the bargaining unit. In determining whether the implied term has been beached, the GSB has found that an important factor to consider is whether the work at issue has been exclusively performed by employees in the bargaining unit. To the extent that the work at issue has not been assigned only to bargaining unit employees, it is quite likely that the Union’s claim for exclusive jurisdiction over the work will not succeed.

7Canine searches at provincial correctional institutions have not been exclusively performed by COs in the Canine Unit. The regular practice of having canine searches performed by persons not in the bargaining unit in the Northern Region leads to the conclusion that the Employer has not breached the implied prohibition against assigning bargaining unit work to persons outside of the bargaining unit. Therefore, the Union has not established that the circumstances relied on by Mr. Tedford in his grievances amount to a contravention of the Collective Agreement.

8For the reasons set out above, the three grievances identified in paragraph 1 of this decision are hereby dismissed.