The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-1435.Cox.06-06-27 Decision Crown Employees Commission de t~1 Grievance Settlement reglement des griefs Board des employes de la _iP_ Couronne 'lIIIIlaa" SUite 600 Bureau 600 Ontario 180 Dundas St West 180, rue Dundas Ouest Toronto,Ontano M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontano) M5G 1Z8 Tel (416) 326-1388 Tel (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Telec (416) 326-1396 GSB# 2003-1435 UNION# 2003-0234-0221 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEV ANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Cox) 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 Stephen Giles Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union FOR THE EMPLOYER Lucy Neal Senior Staff Relations Officer Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services HEARING May 24,2006. 2 Decision In September of 1996 tle Ministry of Correctional Services notifiec tle Union and employees at a number of provincial correctional institutions that their facilities woulc- be closed and/or restructured over the next few years. On June 6, 2000 and June 29, 2000 the Union filec policyanc incivicual grievances that allegec various breaches of the Collective Agreement inclucing Article 6 anc 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)) outlinec - conc itions for the correctional officers while the seconc, catec July 19,2001 (hereinafter referrec to as "MERC 2") provicec 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. While it was agreec in each case that the settlements were "without prejucice or prececent to positions eitler tle union or tle emp_oyer may ta(e on tle same issues in future discussions", tle parties recognizec- tlat cisputes mig.lt arise regarcjng tle imp_ementation of tle memoranca. According__y, tley agreec, at Part G, paragraph 8: The parties agree that they will request that Felicity Briggs, Vice Clair of the Grievance Settlement Boarc will be seizec with resolving any cisputes that arise from tle imp._ementation oftlis agreement. It is this agreement that provides me with the jurisdiction to resolve the outstanding matters. 3 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 cecommissioning of institutions, it is not surprising that a number of grievances anc cjsputes arose. This is another of the cjsputes that have arisen uncer the MERC Memorandum of Settlement. 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 icentical to that founc in Article 22.16.2 which states: Tle mecjator/arbitrator shaJ enceavour to assist tle parties to settle tle grievance by mediation. If the parties are unable to settle the grievance by mediation, the mediator/arbitrator shall determine the grievance by arbitration. Wlen c-etermining the grievance by arbitration, the mecjator/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) c-ays after completing proceec-ings, un_ess the parties agree otherwise. 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 arbitratec. However, there are still a large number that have yet to be cealt with. It is because of the vast numbers of grievances that I have decided, in accordance with my juriscjction to so cetermine, that grievances are to be presentec- 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 4 evic.ence, to c.ate, tlis process .las been efficient anc. has al.owec. the parties to remain relatively current with cjsputes that arise from the continuing transition process. 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 cjrectec the parties to speak again with their principles to ascertain the facts or the rationale behinc. the particular outstancjng matter. In each case this has been done to my satisfaction. 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 formic able one. Witl ongoIng c langes in Ministeria. bouncaries anc other organizational aterations, the task has late.y become .arger, not smal.er. It is for these reasons that tle process I have outlinec is appropriate in these circumstances. On May 5, 2005 this Board issued a decision concerning a grievance filed by Mr. Danny Cox (GSB# 2002-1455). That decision stated at page 3: The grievor, Daniel Cox, filed a grievance alleging an improper application of Article 20 of the Collective Agreement. It is the grievor's view that he was moved prior to other staff and prior to all of the inmates being removed from his home institution. The facts were not in dispute Mr. Cox worked at the Guelph Correctional Centre in the Inc.ustrial Officer 2 classification. In accordance with the Memorancum of Agreement signec on May 3, 2001, he receivec rights uncer Article 20 of the Collective Agreement. he was surplussec on the common surplus date of November 21,2001. The grievor exercised his right to displace and he received an Industrial Officer 2 position at the TRILCOR .aunc-ry in Milton. In February 2002 tle 5 GCC's inmates were movec to otler institutions anc Mr. Cox movec to TRILCOR in Milton shortly thereafter. T:le TRILCOR S.10p at tle GCC location remainec open after tle GCC inmates were moved and operated without the use of any inmate labour. The Guelph Assessment and Treatment Centre ("GA TU") remained open but its inmates were not usec to wor( at TRILCOR. For tlat reason, not a__ Industrial Officers were moved to their new positions. It was the grievor's position that he should not have been moved prior to other Inc-ustrial Officers. Further, he allegec- that the Employer's decision to move him before other employees was cue to anti-union animus. Mr. Cox c_aimec tlatlis order to move out of GCC came just before an anticipatec OPSEU strike. He also alleged that local management at Guelph did not want him on the picket line and therefore ordered him to move. Paragraphs 5 anc- 6 of tle Memoranc-um of Agreement signec- on May 3, 2001, stated: Employees occupying the transition cost centre positions will be surplussed on the same date. These employees will have access to full Article 20 rights. The employees will remain at their current work site until the cate the institution no longer houses any inmates or another date agreed to by the employer and the employee. Upon mutual agreement employees may be temporarily assignec- elsewhere until their placement occurs. In my view, the Employer has the right uncer paragraph 6 above to move employees once the institution's inmates are gone. While some inmates continued to be housed at the GCC location, those inmates were from GA TU and therefore the Employer could oblige the grievor to move to his new position at TRILCOR in Milton. Mr. Cox filed a further grievance on June 27, 2003 arising from the same fact situation. This grievance states that because he was moved from Guelph to Maplehurst prematurely he was cenied overtime opportunities. 6 Tle instant grievance was fi_ec- prior to the Boarc-'s above cecision. Given that I have already c-eterminec- that Mr. Cox was not improperly or prematurely moved to Milton, this grievance must also be dismissed. Dated in Toronto, this 2ih day of June 2006. 7 ~ . Felicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair