HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-2207.Kosmyna.14-01-29 DecisionCrown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB#2012-2207
UNION#2012-0617-0011
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Kosmyna) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE Felicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Nick Mustari and Gregg Gray
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officers
FOR THE EMPLOYER Greg Gledhill
Ministry of Government Services
Centre for Employee Relations
Employee Relations Advisor
HEARING September 17, 2013 and January 20, 2014
- 2 -
Decision
[1] Since 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 Community Safety and
Correctional Services as well as the Ministry of Children and Youth Services
restructuring initiatives around the Province. Through the MERC (Ministry Employment
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.
[2] The 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.
[3] Over 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.
[4] The parties have also negotiated a number of agreements that provide for the “roll-over”
of fixed term staff to regular (classified) employee status.
[5] Hundreds 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.
[6] It was determined by this Board at the outset that the process for this 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.
- 3 -
[7] Robert Kosmyna is a Rehabilitation Officer at the Sudbury Jail. He filed a grievance
alleging that the Cross Ministry MERC Agreements are “flawed and unfair toward non
Correctional Officers.”
[8] In his written statement the grievor sets out a number of examples that are “unfair” or
“biased” against non-correctional staff. In particular he appeared frustrated that Youth
Service Officers who have “totally different regulations, rules of conduct and
philosophies” were given access to Correctional Officer positions while non-correctional
staff working within the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services were
not.
[9] The grievor also appeared to be frustrated by the fact that people in his classification did
not have the opportunity to be offered enhanced packages in an effort to provide work to
a job threatened MCYS employee.
[10] While I understand the grievor’s frustration, there is no violation of the Collective
Agreement and I cannot find the MERC agreement to be either flawed or unfair. Just
because not all classifications are treated exactly the same does not mean that the result is
unfair or wrong. The parties put their minds to an agreement that provided job stability to
job threatened employees. They did so in a way that both found acceptable.
[11] Accordingly, the grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 29th day of January 2014.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair