GSB# 2024-00893; 2024-00894; 2024-01045

UNION# 2024-0362-0001; 2024-0434-0008; 2024-0103-0003

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Vaishnav et al)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Natural Resources)

Employer

BEFORE

Sara Slinn

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Alex Zamfir Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Julia Evans Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Senior Counsel

HEARING

August 21, 2025

Decision

1This preliminary decision addresses three individual grievances filed by Pankajkumar Vaishnav, Christopher Bierman, and Stephen Douglas in May 2024. The three grievances set out identical statements of grievance, challenging changes the Employer has made to positions in 2020 and 2022. The grievances claim that the Employer has thereby constructively dismissed the grievors and has breached Articles 2 (Management Rights), 7.1.1, 7.1.2 (Promotion), and 22.8.2 (Dismissal) of the Collective Agreement.

2The Employer has raised preliminary objections to these grievances, seeking dismissal of the grievances on either or both of the following grounds:

(1) That the grievances are, in substance, classification grievances which the Board is precluded from dealing with pursuant to sections 51 and 52 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993, SO 1993, c 38 (“CECBA”) and Article 22.12 and Appendix 34 of the Collective Agreement.

(2) That the grievances were filed outside of the within the 30-day time limit for filing grievances set out in Article 22 of the Collective Agreement.

3The Parties agreed that these preliminary issues would be determined pursuant to Article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement and agreed that I would provide a bottom-line decision.

4Having heard the submissions of Counsel, considered the facts of the cases, and having reviewed the documents and authorities provided, my decision is as follows.

(1) First, on the specific facts of these cases, I find that these three grievances are, in substance, classification grievances. Therefore, the grievances are outside of the Board’s jurisdiction to hear.

(2) Second, I find that the grievances are not continuing grievances, and therefore, were filed long outside of the 30-day Collective Agreement time limit. In the circumstances I do not find it appropriate to exercise discretion pursuant to s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, SO 1995, c 1, Sch A to extend this time limit.

5Accordingly, the grievances are dismissed.