GSB# 2024-01972

UNION# 2024-0708-0013

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Edwards)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services)

Employer

BEFORE

Gail Misra

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Gregg Gray Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Karen Martin Treasury Board Secretariat Employee Relations Branch Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING

December 12, 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.

7Matthew Edwards is a Fixed Term (“FXT”) Youth Services Officer (“YSO”) who began working at the Justice Ronald Lester Youth Centre (the “Youth Centre”) in November 2022. On October 19, 2024 Mr. Edwards filed a grievance claiming a breach of Article 6 of the Collective Agreement. By way of remedy, he seeks to be made whole and a full time position. It is worth noting at the outset that Article 6 does not apply to YSOs, as the manner in which YSO vacancies are filled is governed by Appendices COR 8 and 19 of the Collective Agreement.

8In particular, the grievor claims that the Employer failed to consider him for rollover into one of three regular YSO positions for which an Expression of Interest (“EOI”) was posted on July 18, 2024. The grievor maintains that he had expressed an interest in the positions, but was not a successful candidate.

9By an email dated July 18, 2024, the Youth Centre Deputy Administrator (“YCDA”) advised all FXT YSOs of an Expression of Interest for three YSO rollovers. He attached a copy of the EOI to his email. It indicated that “interested applicants must submit written correspondence via email indicating their interest in being considered for this opportunity by 4:30 p.m. on Sunday July 28, 2024”. It further indicated as follows: “Send applications to: Randy Cameron, Youth Centre Administrator, Justice Ronald Lester Youth Centre, via email: (email of the individual was listed)”. The bolded words were in the EOI.

10On July 19, 2024 Mr. Edwards sent the YCDA an email message indicating that he was interested in the regular classified YSO position and wanted to put his name on the list. The grievor had pressed “Reply” as he had not read the EOI which specified to whom people had to send their applications. The grievor would have received the YCDA’s “Out of Office Alert”, which advised everyone that he was going to be away from the office from July 19 to August 6, 2024; that he would have limited or no access to his email; and that if one required immediate assistance, one had to contact the Administrator. The message also gave the Administrator’s email address. The grievor did not contact the Administrator to express his interest in the EOI, although at that date he still would have had lots of time to do so since the EOI did not close until July 28, 2024.

11Three YSOs expressed their respective interest in the classified YSO positions to the Administrator. There being only three classified YSO positions available, the Employer chose those three applicants, who were persons second, third and sixth on the list of FXT YSOs cumulative hours worked. Sometime after the grievor found out who the successful applicants were, he filed this grievance. Mr. Edwards was seventh on the FXT YSO list in terms of total hours.

12Having reviewed the evidence and submissions of the parties it is clear that the grievor had not submitted his expression of interest to the Administrator, as required by the terms of the EOI. As such, the Administrator could not have been aware of his application for one of the three positions in question, and only applicants can be considered pursuant to the posted EOI. It is unfortunate that the grievor had not read the EOI, as had he done so, he would have seen to whom he had to submit his application. Furthermore, it is apparent that, having mistakenly submitted his expression of interest to the YCDA by reply email, Mr. Edwards did not read the YCDA’s “Out of Office alert” email, which advised that he was away until early August and that one had to contact the Administrator. As already noted, had the grievor noted this at the time, he would have had time to submit a timely application to the Administrator before the EOI closed on July 28^th.

13However, in any event in this instance since the grievor was seventh on the list of total hours for the FXT YSOs, he would not have been successful as he did not have enough FXT seniority. As noted above, there were six persons ahead of him on the list of total hours, and three of them had submitted timely applications to the Administrator.

14In all the circumstances I cannot find that the Employer acted improperly in this instance, and must dismiss the grievance for the reasons outlined above.