The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014-2933.Agustin et al.15-06-16 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#2014-2933 UNION#2014-5112-0116 Additional Files listed in Appendix “A” IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Agustin et al) 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 Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer FOR THE EMPLOYER Greg Gledhill Treasury Board Secretariat Centre for Employee Relations Employee Relations Advisor HEARING March 9, June 9, 2015 - 2 - Decision [1] In September of 1996 the Ministry of Correctional Services notified the Union and employees at a number of provincial correctional institutions that their facilities would be closed and/or restructured over the next few years. On June 6, 2000 and June 29, 2000 the Union filed policy and individual grievances that alleged various breaches of the Collective Agreement including Article 6 and Article 31.15 as well as grievances relating to the filling of Correctional Officer positions. In response to these grievances the parties entered into discussions and ultimately agreed upon two Memoranda of Settlement concerning the application of the collective agreement during the “first phase of the Ministry’s transition”. One memorandum, dated May 3, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “MERC 1” (Ministry Employment Relations Committee)) outlined conditions for the correctional officers while the second, dated July 19, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “MERC 2”) provided for the non-correctional officer staff. Both agreements were subject to ratification by respective principles and settled all of the grievances identified in the related MERC appendices, filed up to that point in time. [2] While it was agreed in each case that the settlements were “without prejudice or precedent to positions either the union or the employer may take on the same issues in future discussions”, the parties recognized that disputes might arise regarding the implementation of the memoranda. Accordingly, they agreed, at Part G, paragraph 8: The parties agree that they will request that Felicity Briggs, Vice Chair of the Grievance Settlement Board will be seized with resolving any disputes that arise from the implementation of this agreement. [3] It is this agreement that provides me with the jurisdiction to resolve the outstanding matters. [4] Both MERC 1 and MERC 2 are lengthy and comprehensive documents that provide for the identification of vacancies and positions and the procedure for filling those positions as they become available throughout various phases of the restructuring. Given the complexity and size of the task of restructuring and decommissioning of institutions, it is not surprising that a number of grievances and disputes arose. This is another of the disputes that have arisen under the MERC Memorandum of Settlement. - 3 - [5] When I was initially invited to hear theses transition disputes, the parties agreed that process to be followed for the determination of these matters would be virtually identical to that found in Article 22.16.2 which states: The mediator/arbitrator shall endeavour to assist the parties to settle the grievance by mediation. If the parties are unable to settle the grievance by mediation, the mediator/arbitrator shall determine the grievance by arbitration. When determining the grievance by arbitration, the mediator/arbitrator may limit the nature and extent of the evidence and may impose such conditions as he or she considers appropriate. The mediator/arbitrator shall give a succinct decision within five (5) days after completing proceedings, unless the parties agree otherwise. [6] The transition committee has dealt with dozens of grievances and complaints prior to the mediation/arbitration process. There have been many other grievances and issues raised before me that I have either assisted the parties to resolve or arbitrated. However, there are still a large number that have yet to be dealt with. It is because of the vast numbers of grievances that I have decided, in accordance with my jurisdiction to so determine, that grievances are to be presented by way of each party presenting a statement of the facts with accompanying submissions. Notwithstanding that some grievors might wish to attend and provide oral evidence, to date, this process has been efficient and has allowed the parties to remain relatively current with disputes that arise from the continuing transition process. [7] Not surprisingly, in a few instances there has been some confusion about the certain facts or simply insufficient detail has been provided. On those occasions I have directed the parties to speak again with their principles to ascertain the facts or the rationale behind the particular outstanding matter. In each case this has been done to my satisfaction. [8] It is essential in this process to avoid accumulating a backlog of disputes. The task of resolving these issues in a timely fashion was, from the outset, a formidable one. With ongoing changes in Ministerial boundaries and other organizational alterations, the task has lately become larger, not smaller. It is for these reasons that the process I have outlined is appropriate in these circumstances. [9] Anthony Agustin and others filed grievances that alleged the Employer violated the Collective Agreement as a result of failure to provide notice of various scheduling changes that occurred during their move to Toronto South Detention Centre. - 4 - [10] The Employer was of the view that there has been no violation because the grievors were told in their letters assigning them to TSDC that they would be reporting for work on June 6, of 2014 at a particular time. Further, their schedule was posted at the new workplace. [11] This matter has been considered previously by this Board. In Re Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services & OPSEU (Johnstone) GSB#2011-2800 (Briggs), it was noted, beginning at paragraph 16: It was the Employer’s position that shift schedules of the grievors did not change because there was no posted schedule for them to work at Owen Sound Jail beyond December 2, 2011. Accordingly, there has been no “change” in the working schedule of the grievors. Further, the grievors were informed of their new workplace far in advance and notified as to when to report. If they were interested in their new schedule beyond the reporting date and time, they could have and should have contracted the facility to which they were newly assigned. Finally, the Employer urged that UN5.1 does not apply in the instances of lateral transfer. Not surprisingly, the Union’s view was somewhat different. It stated that the grievors were scheduled to work in accordance with a master schedule. By its very nature, their schedule continued, virtually without change, far into the future. Therefore the grievors considered their schedule, according to the master, to be changed by their reassignment. After consideration, I agree with the Employer’s view and therefore the grievances are dismissed. - 5 - [12] I have heard nothing in the facts presented in this matter that would cause me to alter my view. [13] The grievances are dismissed. Dated in Toronto this 16th day of June 2015. --- Felicity D. Briggs - 6 - Appendix A Grievor GSB# OPSEU File# 1. Archer, Elizabeth 2014-2934 2014-5112-0117 2. Ayles, Lorrie 2014-2935 2014-5112-0118 3. Baynham, Steven 2014-2936 2014-5112-0119 4. Beerdat, Alicia 2014-2937 2014-5112-0120 5. Bhalla, Ashok 2014-2938 2014-5112-0121 6. Cadogan, Mariesa 2014-2939 2014-5112-0122 7. Curran, Brooke 2014-2940 2014-5112-0123 8. Dhaliwal, Bir Surinder Kaur 2014-2941 2014-5112-0124 9. Farol, Maria 2014-2942 2014-5112-0125 10. Francis, Jay 2014-2943 2014-5112-0126 11 Agner-Groves, Nicole Teresa 2014-2944 2014-5112-0127 12. Lloret, Alexandra 2014-2945 2014-5112-0128 13. Manes, John 2014-2946 2014-5112-0129 14. Moss, Jillian 2014-2947 2014-5112-0130 15. Pacar, Nedilijka 2014-2948 2014-5112-0131 16. Paplinskie, Shawn 2014-2949 2014-5112-0132 17. Petrakova, Jitka 2014-2950 2014-5112-0133 18. Polanski, Grzegorz 2014-2951 2014-5112-0134 19. Salmon, Loraine 2014-2952 2014-5112-0135 20. Schneider, Michael 2014-2953 2014-5112-0136 21. Sivalingam, Karan 2014-2954 2014-5112-0137 22. Sohal, Harjinder 2014-2955 2014-5112-0138 23. Tavares, Dianne 2014-2956 2014-5112-0139 24. Terrey, Joshua 2014-2957 2014-5112-0140 25. Villamar Delvalle, Omar 2014-2958 2014-5112-0141 26. Villeneuve, Robert 2014-2959 2014-5112-0142 27. Walsh, James 2014-2960 2014-5112-0143 28. Yeboah, Frederick 2014-2961 2014-5112-0144 29. Zekarias, Filmon 2014-2962 2014-5112-0145