GSB# 2024-02476
UNION# 2024-0221-0006
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Weisler)
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
Karen Martin Treasury Board Secretariat Employee Relations Branch Employee Relations Advisor
HEARING
September 19, 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.
7Alyson Weisler is a Probation and Parole Officer on a fixed term contract. Ms. Weisler's employment history shows that she held a permanent position as a Court and Client Representative at MAG in 2017. Between October 2020 and July 2021, Ms. Weisler held a temporary position as a Probation and Parole Officer. When she was asked to return to her home position in MAG, Ms. Weisler resigned from that position and remained working as a Probation and Parole Officer on a fixed term contract until May 31, 2024, when she resigned from her employment in order to take a permanent position with the Brantford Police as a Communications Officer.
8Ms. Weisler stayed in her position with Brantford Police for a short time and then requested to return to her Probation and Parole Office position. She was hired back on July 15, 2024 in the Probation and Parole Officer position on a fixed term contract. Upon her return to this position, Ms. Weisler learned that her previous time working at the OPS would not count towards her seniority. Ms. Weisler claims that, despite her resignation effective as of May 31, 2024, her previous years working at the OPS should have been included as part of her seniority calculation.
9Ms. Weisler acknowledged that prior to making her decision to take a job with the Brantford Police, she consulted with co-workers but that she did not contact Human Resources or refer to the Collective Agreement. She also spoke with her Manager who told her that she would not lose her seniority if she returned to her position within 13 weeks. While the Employer agreed that the Manager gave Ms. Weisler incorrect information, it noted that the Manager strongly encouraged Ms. Weisler to consult with a Human Resources Advisor. Unfortunately, Ms. Weisler chose not to reach out to a Human Resources Advisor prior to making her decision to resign from the OPS.
10While it is unfortunate that her Manager gave her incorrect information, Article 18.4 of the Collective Agreement clearly states that "Continuous service shall be deemed terminated if: (a) an employee resigns or retires." Had Ms. Weisler followed up with a Human Resources Advisor or checked the Collective Agreement, it would have confirmed that her resignation constituted a break in service from the OPS.
11This issue has been determined by the Board on a number of occasions including in the following decisions: OPSEU (Wiles) v. Ontario (MCSCS), GSB#2016-0300, 2016-0695, 2016-0696, December 6, 2016 (Briggs); OPSEU (Sutherland) v. Ontario (MCSCS), GSB#2016-0461, September 11, 2017 (Briggs); and, OPSEU (Bourgeois) v. Ontario (MCSCS), GSB#2017-0503, November 6, 2017 (Briggs). Nothing on the facts before me in this case make the Grievor's situation any different from those cases. This is simply an application of the terms of the Collective Agreement.
12Having considered the facts and submissions of the parties, and for all of the reasons outlined above, this grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 16^th^ day of December 2025.