GSB# 2025-00236; 2025-00578; 2025-02692; 2025-02693; 2025-02694

UNION# 25-0618-001; 25-0220-005; 2025-0220-0029; 2025-0290-0047; 2025-0601-0007

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Mills et al)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Dale Hewat

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Gregg Gray Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Karen Martin Treasury Board Secretariat Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING

February 5, 2026

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.

7This case deals with the Employer’s failure to make timely payments to the following Grievors pursuant to various Minutes of Settlements (“MOS”): Shawn Beith, Felicia Cristalli, Katica Joszepovic, Elizabeth Mills and Taylor De Cicco (the “Grievors”). All filed grievances which were settled by an MOS and committed the Employer to pay compensation to them in accordance with the MOS timelines. Shawn Beith’s and Ms. Jozepovic’s MOSs were each dated July 22, 2025 but as of the date of this hearing, records showed that their payments had not been made as of November 21, 2025. Ms. Cristalli’s MOS was dated June 23, 2025 but she was not paid until October 16, 2025, almost four months after the MOS was signed. Taylor De Cicco’s MOS was dated September 16, 2025, but as of the date of the December 10, 2025 Hearing date, no payment had been made pursuant to the MOS. Ms. Mill’s MOS was signed on June 23, 2025 and she was paid what was due to her in the MOS on November 19, 2025, more than five months after the MOS was signed.

8The Grievance Settlement Board has dealt with the issue of delayed payments under an MOS numerous times and the enforceability of such payments. In a recent labor arbitration decision Victorian Order of Nurses (Grey-Bruce) v Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 289, 2025 CanLII 77112 (ON LA) the arbitrator relied on Arbitrator Abramsky’s decision in Ontario Public Service Union (Young) v. Ontario (Ministry of the Attorney General), 2004 CanLII 94661 (ON GSB), which sets out the importance of holding parties to their settlement agreements. At paragraph 55 of the Young decision, it is noted:

“There is no dispute between the parties regarding the importance of settlement agreements. The GSB has repeatedly emphasized the importance of settlement agreements to effective labour relations between the parties. As set forth in OPSEU (Landry-King) and Ministry of Community and Social Services, GSB No. 1593/84 (Knopf) at p. 8-9: The Board wishes to do everything possible to foster and honour settlements reached by the parties. Once settlements are achieved, parties must feel confident that they can rely upon them. Otherwise, there would be no incentive for the parties to even attempt to settle matters. ...”

9In this case, the Employer did not provide an explanation for the late settlement payments. I adopt the reasoning in Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Hookimaw) v Ontario (Government and Consumer Services), 2018 CanLII 129441 (ON GSB) that a declaration of a breach of an MOS would not be sufficient because that would not have a deterrent effect on the Employer’s future failure to satisfy its obligations under a settlement and because a declaration would not recognize the impact that a delayed payment has on the Grievors. As stated in Hookimaw (supra), at paragraph 37, “If there are no consequences in a case such as this, the integrity of the settlement is undermined”.

10Because the Employer was not able to explain its reasons for the late payments and delays under the MOSs before me, I find it necessary to award damages to each of the Grievors as a proper remedy for the Employer’s failure to uphold its obligation to pay the Grievors within the timelines of their respective MOS documents.

11Accordingly, I order that each of the Grievors be paid $500.00 as damages within the next 60 days.