The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-1963.Meyer.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# 2003-1963 2003-2577 UNION# 2003-0229-0029 2003-0234-0462 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (Meyer) 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 Peter Meyer IS a CorrectIOnal Officer at Maplehurst CorrectIOnal Complex. WhIle stIll employed as an unclassIfied CorrectIOnal Officer at Ontano CorrectIOnal InstItute he filed two gnevances Both sImply allege that he was not paid "momes owed" The remedy requested IS for travel tIme and mIleage costs On five days over the course of July and August of 2003 the gnevor was offered overtIme work. He accepted the offer AccordIngly he was assIgned to provIde escort servIce out of the Maplehurst Complex. It was for these worked overtIme ShIfts that the gnevor asserts the travel tIme and mIleage are OWIng It was the gnevor's posItIOn that because he was workIng at OCI, any work IncludIng overtIme offered and accepted, outsIde of hIS home posItIOn bnngs entItlement to travel tIme and mIleage ArtIcle 13 1 provIdes for "kIlometnc rates" and states, "If an employee IS reqUIred to use hIS or her own automobIle on the Employer's busIness" certaIn rates apply ArtIcle 14 1 "tIme credIts whIle travelIng" states that employees "shall be credIted wIth all tIme spent In travelIng outsIde of workIng hours when authonzed by the mImstry" ThIS IS not a case where the Employer "reqUIred" the gnevor to "use hIS own vehIcle" ThIS was a senes of overtIme shIfts that were offered to but not reqUIred of, the gnevor Further there IS no eVIdence before me that the gnevor was authonzed to travel outsIde of workIng hours by the mImstry The gnevor sImply accepted overtIme ShIfts Therefore travel tIme does not apply The gnevances are dIsmIssed. ~ III Toronto tlus 6ili day ofJuly 2004 ~lS