HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-0198 Jurcic 17-09-11 Decision
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB#2017-0198
UNION# 2016-0708-0013
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Jurcic) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE Felicity D. Briggs Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION Dan Sidsworth
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Greg Gledhill
Treasury Board Secretariat
Centre for Employee Relations
Employee Relations Advisor
Al. J. Quinn
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
Senior Employee Transition Advisor
HEARINGS July 11, 2017 and August 28, 2017
-2-
Decision
[1] Since the spring of 2000 the parties have been meeting regularly to address
matters of mutual interest which have arisen as the result of the Ministry of
Community Safety and Correctional Services as well as the Ministry of Children
and Youth Services restructuring initiatives around the Province. Through the
MERC (Ministry Employment Relations Committee) a subcommittee was
established to deal with issues arising from the transition process. The parties
have negotiated a series of MERC agreements setting out the process for how
organizational changes will unfold for Correctional and Youth Services staff and
for non-Correctional and non-Youth Services staff.
[2] The parties agreed that this Board would remain seized of all issues that arise
through this process and it is this agreement that provides me the jurisdiction to
resolve the outstanding matters.
[3] Over the years as some institutions and/or youth centres decommissioned or
reduced in size others were built or expanded. The parties have made efforts to
identify vacancies and positions and the procedures for the filling of those positions
as they become available.
[4] The parties have also negotiated a number of agreements that provide for the “roll-
over” of fixed term staff to regular (classified) employee status.
[5] Hundreds of grievances have been filed as the result of the many changes that
have taken place at provincial institutions. The transition subcommittee has, with
the assistance of this Board, mediated numerous disputes. Others have come
before this Board for disposition.
[6] It was determined by this Board at the outset that the process for these disputes
would be somewhat more expedient. To that end, grievances are presented by
way of statements of fact and succinct submissions. On occasion clarification has
been sought from grievors and institutional managers at the request of the Board.
This process has served the parties well. The decisions are without prejudice but
attempt to provide guidance for future disputes.
[7] As the result of a Memorandum of Agreement signed in May of 2014, Matt Jurcic
was reinstated as a Correctional Officer. Specifically, the MOA stated, at
-3-
paragraph 3 that “as of May 20, 2014, the grievor shall be employed as a
Correctional Officer and his place of employment shall be the Thunder Bay
Correctional Complex.”
[8] In the fall of 2016 the grievor applied for a lateral transfer to the Thunder Bay Jail
and was denied. Mr. Jurcic filed a grievance and requested an immediate transfer.
[9] It was the Employer’s view that the grievor’s employment is to be at the Thunder
Bay Correctional Complex as set out in the Memorandum of Agreement between
the parties. Further, he is foreclosed from transferring to another facility unless the
Employer agrees. The Union disputed this contention.
[10] After consideration I must agree with the Employer. The Agreement between the
parties was quite specific regarding the “place of employment” for the grievor. The
Memorandum also stated that the grievor “understands and agrees to the terms of
the Memorandum….”.
[11] There was no time period set out regarding the specificity of the grievor’s
workplace and there is nothing in the Memorandum that would allow me to alter
the terms.
[12] The grievance is therefore denied.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 11th day of September 2017.
Felicity D. Briggs, Arbitrator