Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-0646.Druchok.03-10-2003 Decision Crown Employees Commission de ~~ Grievance Settlement reglement des griefs Board des employes de la Couronne ~-,... Suite 600 Bureau 600 Ontario 180 Dundas Sl. West 180 rue Dundas Ouest Toronto Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Telec. (416) 326-1396 GSB# 2001-0646 2002-2861 UNION# 01A726 2003-0218-0010 2003-0218-0011 2003-0218-0012,2003-0218-0013 2003-0218-0014 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (Druchok) Grievor - and - The Crown In RIght of Ontano (Mimstry of PublIc Safety and Secunty) Employer BEFORE FelIcIty D Bnggs Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION Scott Andrews Gnevance Officer Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon FOR THE EMPLOYER Greg GledhIll Staff RelatIOns Officer Mimstry of PublIc Safety and Secunty HEARING September 29 2003 2 DECISION In September of 1996 the Mimstry of CorrectIOnal ServIces notIfied the Umon 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 Umon filed polIcy and IndIVIdual gnevances that alleged vanous breaches of the collectIve agreement IncludIng artIcle 6 and artIcle 31 15 as well as gnevances relatIng to the fillIng of correctIOnal officer posItIOns In response to these gnevances the partIes entered Into dIscussIOns and ultImately agreed upon two Memoranda of Settlement concermng the applIcatIOn of the collectIve agreement dunng the "first phase of the Mimstry's transItIOn" One memorandum, dated May 3 2000 (hereInafter referred to as "MERC 1" (Mimstry 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 pnncIples and settled all of the gnevances IdentIfied In the related MERC appendIces, filed up to that pOInt In tIme WhIle It was agreed In each case that the settlements were "wIthout prejUdICe or precedent to posItIOns eIther the umon or the employer may take on the same Issues In future dIscussIOns" the partIes recogmzed that dIsputes mIght anse regardIng the ImplementatIOn of the memoranda. AccordIngly they agreed, at Part G paragraph 8 The partIes agree that they wIll request that FelIcIty Bnggs, Vice Chair of the Gnevance Settlement Board wIll be seIzed wIth resolvIng any dIsputes that anse from the ImplementatIOn of thIS agreement. It IS thIS agreement that provIdes me wIth the jUnSdIctIOn to resolve the outstandIng matters 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 vanous phases of the restructunng. GIven the complexIty and SIze of the task of restructunng and decommIssIOmng of InstItutIOns, It IS not surpnSIng that a number of gnevances and dIsputes arose ThIS IS one of the numerous decIsIOns dealIng wIth dIsputes under the MERC Memoranda of Agreement. 3 Mike Druchok was a correctIOnal officer at Burtch CorrectIOnal Centre who filed three gnevances All relate to the sImIlar sItuatIOns and alleged that he was Improperly demed a Job trade In February of 2001 he applIed for a Job trade However he dId not follow the process set out at artIcle 10 3 4 of the collectIve agreement. At the same tIme he asked for a lateral transfer under Part B of the MERC 1 Memorandum of Settlement. Unfortunately hIS lateral request was not accessed due to hIS lack of semonty The gnevor filed another gnevance on January 15 2003 that he was demed a subsequent Job trade request. In thIS gnevance Mr Druchak properly noted that he was demed Job trades "due to my lack of semonty" He alleged dISCnmInatIOn because of hIS age and suggested that people who were less qualIfied and had less semonty were beIng granted Job trades There was no eVIdence before me of any such dISCnmInatIOn. For thIS Board to find dISCnmInatIOn on a prohIbIted ground there must be clear and cogent eVIdence FInally Mr Druchak alleged that he was Improperly demed hIS "nght to lateral transfer per artIcle 6 6 l"ofthe collectIve agreement. ArtIcle 6 6 1 states With the agreement of the Umon, the employee and the Employer an employee may be assIgned to a vacancy where (a) the vacant posItIOn IS IdentIcal to the posItIOn occupIed by the employee and (b) the vacant posItIOn IS In the same mImstry as the posItIOn occupIed by the employee, and the provIsIOns of ArtIcle 6 1 1 6 2, 6 3 6 4 and 6 5 shall not apply 4 ArtIcle 6 6 1 IS a dIscretIOnary provIsIOn of the collectIve agreement. As such, employees do not have a "nght" to such a transfer I was provIded wIth consIderable correspondence between the gnevor and the Employer AccordIng to that documentatIOn there was no vIOlatIOn of eIther MERC 1 or the collectIve agreement. AccordIngly these gnevances are demed.