HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-1852.Quinn et al.03-10-30 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# 2001-1852,2002-2452,2002-2753 2002-2815
UNION# 02C196 2003-0218-0023 2003-0218-0024 2003-0218-0025
2003-0218-0026 2003-0218-0020 2003-0218-0021 2003-0218-0022
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(QuInn et al) 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 5 2003
2
DECISION
In September of 1996 the MmIstry of CorrectIOnal ServIces notIfied the Umon and
employees at a number of provmcIaI correctIOnal mstItutIOns 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 pohcy and mdIvIdual gnevances that alleged vanous
breaches of the collectIve agreement mcludmg artIcle 6 and artIcle 31 15 as well as
gnevances relatmg to the filhng of correctIOnal officer posItIOns In response to
these gnevances the partIes entered mto dIscussIOns and ultImately agreed upon
two Memoranda of Settlement concernmg the apphcatIOn of the collectIve
agreement dunng the "first phase of the MmIstry's transItIOn" One memorandum,
dated May 3, 2000 (heremafter referred to as "MERC I" (MmIstry Employment
RelatIOns CommIttee)) outhned condItIons for the correctIOnal officers wIllIe the
second, dated July 19,2001 (heremafter referred to as "MERC 2") provIded for the
non-correctIOnal officer staff Both agreements were subject to ratIficatIOn by
respectIve prmcIples and settled all of the gnevances IdentIfied m the related
MERC appendIces, filed up to that pomt m tIme
WhIle It was agreed m each case that the settlements were "wIthout prejUdICe or
precedent to posItIOns eIther the umon or the employer may take on the same
Issues m future dIscussIOns", the partIes recogmzed that dIsputes mIght anse
regardmg the nnplementatIOn of the memoranda. Accordmgly, they agreed, at Part
G, paragraph 8
The partIes agree that they wIll request that FehcIty Bnggs, VIce Chair of
the Gnevance Settlement Board wIll be seIzed wIth resolvmg any dIsputes
that anse from the ImplementatIOn of thIS agreement
3
It IS thIS agreement that provIdes me wIth the JunsdIctIOn to resolve the outstandmg
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
filhng those posItIOns as they become aVailable throughout varIOUS phases of the
restructunng GIven the complexIty and SIze of the task of restnlctunng and
decommIssIOmng of mstItutIOns, It IS not surpnsmg that a number of gnevances
and dIsputes arose ThIS IS another decIsIOn that consIders some of the dIsputes that
have arIsen under the MERC Memoranda of Settlement
Sundar to the process utIhzed for earher decIsIOns regardmg these transItIOn
matters, the partIes attended at an arbItratIOn hearmg and provIded facts and
submIssIOns concernmg the outstandmg Issues In large measure the facts were m
agreement and It was not necessary to call eVIdence
Gnevances were filed by A. Conners, P Muth, S Qumn & C Barnard, all of
whom worked at Burtch CorrectIOnal Centre Each of these gnevances all anse
from the same facts One gnevance alleged.
I gneve the process by whIch the RFP was admmIstered m that Burtch CC
staff who have retIred notIfied management and HR of theIr mtentIOn to
bndge to retIrement or who have chosen the voluntary eXIt optIOn were not
removed from the numbers of staff at Burtch CC reassIgned by bumpmg and
later transfer pnor to the RFP bemg revIsIted wIth respect to lateral transfer
request filed as of December 5, 2002
In accordance wIth the agreement of the partIes, there was a common surplus date
If employees left pnor to the common surplus date any resultmg ArtIcle 20
posItIOns were filled on the basIs of semonty Some mdIvIduals left after they had
4
receIved theIr ArtIcle 20 entItlements on the common surplus date and those
posItIOns were not filled. It IS these posItIOns that the gnevors lay claim to
In my VIew, there IS nothmg m the agreement that would obhge the Employer to
fill the ArtIcle 20 posItIOns that become vacant after the common surplus date
Accordmgly, the gnevances are demed
Dated; Toronto ~s 30th day of October 2003
.
F ehcIty D Br ggs
VIce-Chair