Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-3108.Stickle et al.04-07-06 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# 2002-3108 2003-2176 2003-2504 UNION# 2003-0229-0002,2003-0229-0033 2003-0229-0035 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (StIckle et al ) Grievor - and - The Crown In RIght of Ontano (Mimstry ofCommumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces) 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 Commumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces HEARING May 13 2004 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 The partIes contInued to negotIate and agree upon further condItIOns regardIng the transItIOn matters MERC 3 was sIgned by the partIes on February 25 2002 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 3 of gnevances and dIsputes arose ThIS IS another of the dIsputes that have ansen under the MERC Memorandum of Settlement. When I was ImtIally 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 gnevance by medIatIOn. If the partIes are unable to settle the gnevance by medIatIOn, the medIator/arbItrator shall determIne the gnevance by arbItratIOn. When determInIng the gnevance by arbItratIOn, the medIator/arbItrator may lImIt the nature and extent of the eVIdence and may Impose such condItIOns as he or she consIders appropnate The medIator/arbItrator shall gIve a SUCCInct decIsIOn wIthIn five (5) days after completIng proceedIngs, unless the partIes agree otherwIse The transItIOn commIttee has dealt wIth dozens of gnevances and complaInts 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, In accordance wIth my JunsdIctIOn to so determIne that gnevances are to be presented by way of each party presentIng a statement of the facts wIth accompanYIng submIssIOns NotwIthstandIng that some gnevors 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 anse from the contInuIng transItIOn process Not surpnsIngly 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 pnncIples to ascertaIn the facts or the ratIOnale behInd the partIcular outstandIng 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 formIdable one With ongOIng changes In Mimstenal boundanes and other orgamzatIOnal alteratIOns, the task has lately become larger not smaller It IS for these reasons that the process I have outlIned IS appropnate In these CIrcumstances 4 John Heathcote filed a gnevance, dated February 17 2003 allegIng that hIS home posItIOn was "re-assIgned to the St. Lawrence Valley CorrectIOnal and Treatment Centre" contrary to hIS wIshes He requested compensatIOn for all momes lost and for stress and financIal hardshIp Two other CorrectIOnal Officers, Mr CunCInS and Mr StIckle have vIrtually IdentIcal gnevances that are before me I wIll outlIne the facts for Mr Heathcote whIch are representatIOnal of the others On November 27 2002, Mr Heathcote, a CorrectIOnal Officer at OCI, receIved a letter InformIng hIm that he had an opportumty to take a change In "locatIOn of headquarters" to the St. Lawrence Valley CorrectIOnal and Treatment Centre In BrockvIlle The letter also stated the folloWIng SIgmng thIS document IndIcates that you are AcceptIng or DeclImng an assIgnment to the 350 bed Umt at the St. Lawrence Valley CorrectIOnal and Treatment Centre, BrockvIlle, Ontano whIch may be avaIlable to you on the basIs of semonty ThIS document IS final and bIndIng upon receIpt by the Employer If you do not respond to thIS letter by 4 30 on December 4 2002, or the letter IS returned Incomplete or unsIgned, you wIll be deemed to have declIned AppendIx 13 nghts The Employer consIders ItS oblIgatIOns In accordance wIth Part 1 SectIOn C of the Memorandum of Agreement/Settlement to be fulfilled. On December 17 2002, the gnevor was Informed the folloWIng ThIS wIll confirm receIpt of your response to my letter dated November 27 2002, IndIcatIng you Interest In an assIgnment to the 350 Bed Umt at the St. Lawrence Valley CorrectIOnal and Treatment Centre I am pleased to advIse you that based on your semonty you wIll be assIgned to the St Lawrence Valley CorrectIOnal and Treatment Centre as a CorrectIOnal Officer 2 Mr Heathcote was Informed In a letter dated Apnl 25 2003 of the folloWIng An ImtIal group of a mImmum of twenty-eIght (28) CorrectIOnal Officer posItIOns wIll be reqUIred to open Phase 1 and the Employer and the Umon have agreed to a process for the staffing of these ImtIal twenty-eIght (28) posItIOns After Phase 1 has been completed, It IS antIcIpated no addItIOnal CorrectIOnal Officers wIll be reqUIred for approxImately one and a half years, or untIl Phase 2 of the St. Lawrence Valley facIlIty IS operatIOnal After reCeIVIng the Apnl 25 2003 letter Mr Heathcote declIned the offer to an assIgnment to St. Lawrence Valley at that tIme He sIgned an agreement the stated, In part: I understand my assIgnment to the St. Lawrence Valley CorrectIOnal and Treatment Centre wIll take place at a later date to be determIned by the Employer 5 SImply put, It was the gnevor's VIew that the Employer was oblIged to tell hIm at the tIme of thIS assIgnment of the date of hIS ImpendIng move In accordance wIth paragraph 1 of AppendIx 13 that states (1) affected employees wIll be notIfied, In wntIng, of the mImstry's decIsIOn to change the operatIOn's headquarters locatIOn and the date when such change wIll take place In the MERC Agreement between the partIes sIgned on March 11 2002, paragraph 11 states The Employer wIll determIne the effectIve date of the relocatIOn of the employee There was no dIspute between the partIes that paragraph 11 of the MERC agreement supersedes the provIsIOns of AppendIx 13 It IS not surpnSIng that the partIes agreed to paragraph 11 of the MERC agreement. The partIes agreed to work together dunng the long and complIcated decommIssIOmng penod to establIsh a workable process that would provIde the hIghest possIble number of employees to remaIn In the Ontano PublIc ServIce To that end, and no doubt because of the often changIng cloSIng dates, the Umon agreed In the March 11 2002, MERC to elImInate the oblIgatIOn upon the Employer to Inform all employees of the actual date of changes when It gIves notIce headquarter changes There are sIgmficant ImplIcatIOns and costs that would flow from an employee not beIng moved on the assIgned date GIven those potentIal costs, If the Employer was not sure of the date of headquarter changes It mIght have been more lIkely to gIve notIce to employees under ArtIcle 20 ThIS would not have been In the Interests of CorrectIOnal Officers around the ProVInce and, no doubt It was for thIS reason the Umon decIded to agree to paragraph 11 of the MERC agreement. The partIes determIned that It made sense to allow the Employer to notIfy employees that they wIll have a headquarter change but Inform them of the date when that tIme IS actually known. Mr Heathcote took the posItIOn that hIS home InstItutIOn changed to St. Lawrence Valley CorrectIOnal and Treatment Centre as of November 27 2002 He submItted a claim for travel tIme and mIleage because he "could not make any Important decIsIOns because any day the employer can order me to report to my home InstItutIOn In BrockvIlle" I dIsagree Indeed, I have some dIfficulty understandIng the gnevor's pOInt of VIew The Umon entered Into negotIatIOns WIth the Employer when It became clear that there would be sIgmficant 6 wIde spread changes IncludIng InstItutIOnal clOSIngs wIthIn the Mimstry Vanous MERC agreements were agreed upon. Those agreements represent a reasonable approach to ensunng the best opportumty for the largest number of correctIOnal employees to contInue to maIntaIn an employment relatIOnshIp In the Instant matter the gnevor was gIven proper notIce In accordance wIth the agreement of the partIes He claimed that he was sIgmficantly dIsadvantaged by not knowIng the tImIng of hIS ImpendIng move and yet, on Apnl 25 2003 the gnevor declIned the opportumty to move to St. Lawrence Valley In Phase 1 That InCOnsIstency IS bafflIng. For those reasons, the gnevances of the three gnevors must fall n Toronto thIS 6th day of July 2004 . S