HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 06-01-03
~
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER SECTION 48 OF
THE ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS ACT, 1995 (as amended)
BETWEEN
The Ontario Public Service Employees Union ("the Union")
AND
Central North Correctional Center (Management & Training
Corporation Canada) ("the Employer" or "the Company")
And in the matter of a number of grievances concerning the assignment of
overtime, work distribution, staffing, and bargaining unit work, more
particularly set out in the letter from counsel for the employer dated
December 15,2005.
BEFORE: R.O. MacDowell (sole arbitrator)
APPEARANCES:
For the Union: Peter Shklanka (counsel)
[and others]
F or the Employer: J ames Bowden ( counsel)
[and others]
------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
A hearing in this matter was scheduled to begin, in Midland, Ontario, on
December 14,2005, and to continue on dates to be fixed in consultation with
counsel.
. .
Endorsement
This arbitration proceeding arises from a series of grievances filed by the
union, at various times, in 2004 and 2005. The grievances are listed in a letter from
counsel for the employer, dated December 15, 2005. They concern (inter alia) the
assignment of overtime, work distribution, and various other staffing-related matters, at
the employer's correctional facility in Penetanguishene, Ontario.
The parties are agreed that I have been properly appointed under the terms
of the collective agreement and that I have jurisdiction to hear and determine all the
matters in dispute between. The parties are further agreed that, if I found that the
employer had breached its legal obligations in some way, I have jurisdiction to fashion an
appropriate remedy. Finally, the parties were agreed that these various matters should be
heard, together (or at least sequentially) by a single arbitrator, because there was a certain
amount of common "institutional" and "background" evidence that pertained to them all;
so that it made little sense to proceed with each case, separately, before a number of
different arbitrators.
However, as it's turned out, it was unnecessary to begin formal litigation
of any of these cases - at least, not yet. Because as a result of the discussions about
occurred on December 14, 2005, the parties agreed to enter into further talks, with a view
to resolving (or at the very least simplifying) these various matters.
2
.
.
Counsel for the employer conceded (on without prejudice basis) that the
employer may well have contravened one or more provisions of the collective agreement
(or the Employment Standards Act) when the new institution was getting "up and
running" and there were unanticipated "start up problems". Similarly, counsel for the
union conceded (also on the without prejudice basis) that certain of the union's concerns
may have since become academic, or at least have diminished in importance, since these
grievances were filed. Both parties referred to the initial disorganization which
accompanied the early period of their relationship, and both parties indicated that some of
those "growing pains" are behind them. In the circumstances, both parties indicated that
they wanted an opportunity to make a further effort to resolve these grievances without
the costs and uncertainties of litigation.
Accordingly, this arbitration proceeding is hereby adjourned, sine die,
while the parties pursue further settlement discussions.
If these matters (or some ofthem) are not re-listed for hearing within one
year of the date hereof, the arbitration proceeding will be terminated, and any underlying
grievances will be considered to be resolved or abandoned.
Dated at Toronto this 3rd day of January, 2006.
~
3