Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-2070.Randa.06-05-31 Decision Crown Employees Commission de Nj 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# 2002-2070 UNION# 2002-0234-0111 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (Randa) Union - and - The Crown In RIght of Ontano (Mimstry ofCommumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer BEFORE FelIcIty D Bnggs Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION Stephen GIles Gnevance Officer Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon FOR THE EMPLOYER Lucy Neal Semor Staff RelatIOns Officer Mimstry of Commumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces HEARING Apnl42006 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 wlule 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 nnplementatIOn of tlus agreement It IS tlus agreement that provIdes me wIth the jUnSdIctIOn to resolve the outstandmg 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 filhng those posItIOns as they become aVailable throughout varIOUS phases of the restructunng GIven the complexIty and SIze of the task of restnlctunng and decommISSIOnIng of mstItutIOns, It IS not surpnsmg that a number of gnevances and dIsputes arose ThIS IS another of the dIsputes that have ansen under the MERC Memorandum of Settlement When I was mItIally mVIted to hear theses transItIOn dIsputes, the partIes agreed that process to be followed for the detennmatIOn of these matters would be vIrtually IdentIcal to that found m ArtIcle 22 16.2 whIch states The mediator/arbItrator shall endeavour to assIst the partIes to settle the gnevance by mediatIOn If the partIes are unable to settle the gnevance by medIatIOn, the mediator/arbItrator shall determme the gnevance by arbItratIOn When detennmmg the gnevance by arbItratIOn, the mediator/arbItrator may hmIt the nature and extent of the eVIdence and may Impose such condItIons as he or she consIders appropnate The mediator/arbItrator shall gIve a succmct decIsIOn wIthm five (5) days after completmg proceedmgs, unless the partIes agree otherwIse The transItIOn commIttee has dealt wIth dozens of gnevances and complamts pnor to the mediatIOn/arbItratIOn process There have been many other gnevances 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 gnevances that I have decIded, m accordance wIth my JunsdIctIOn to so determme, that gnevances are to be presented by way of each party presentmg a statement of the facts wIth accompanymg submIssIOns NotwIthstandmg that some gnevors mIght wIsh to attend and provIde oral 4 eVIdence, to date, thIS process has been efficIent and has allowed the partIes to rem am relatIvely current wIth dIsputes that anse from the contmumg transItIOn process Not surpnsmgly, m a few mstances there has been some confusIOn about the certam facts or sImply msufficIent detail has been provIded. On those occaSIOns I have dIrected the partIes to speak agam wIth theIr prmcIples to ascertam the facts or the ratIOnale behmd the partIcular outstandmg matter In each case thIS has been done to my satIsfactIOn It IS essentIal m thIS process to aVOId accumulatmg a backlog of dIsputes The task of resolvmg these Issues m a tImely faslllon was, from the outset, a fonnIdable one WIth ongomg changes m MmIstenal boundanes and other orgamzatIonal alteratIOns, the task has lately become larger, not smaller It IS for these reasons that the process I have outlmed IS appropnate m these CIrcumstances Lee Ann Randa IS Library TechmcIan 3 workmg at Maplehurst CorrectIOnal Complex She filed a gnevance that alleged that the Employer vIOlated AppendIx 25 as well as ArtIcle 56 of the CollectIve Agreement by faIhng to convert her to Regular Part TIme status Further, she IS of the VIew that Library servIces should be provIded on a full tIme basIs at Maplehurst AppendIx 25 of the CollectIve Agreement provIdes that the partIes wIll dISCUSS the concept of convertmg unclassIfied part tune employees to regular part tune status It does not provIde an mdIvIdual nght to such converSIOn Indeed, there IS no formula or cntena agreed upon for thIS type of converSIOn ArtIcle 56 has no apphcatIOn to the fact at hand. 5 I understand the gnevor's motIvatIOn She IS of the VIew that there ought to be sufficIent work and she wants to be converted to classIfied status I have no JunsdIctIOn to order the Employer to provIde LIbrary servIces on a full tIme basIs even If I was convInced It was the nght tlung to do and, sImply put, I have no such eVIdence Further, I cannot convert tlus gnevor because there IS notlung In the CollectIve Agreement that entItles her to classIfied status F or those reasons, the gnevance IS demed. ay,2006 VIce-Chair