Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-3007.Due.04-08-31 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# 2003-3007 UNION# 2003-0359-0056 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (Due) 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 July 7 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 Ms Amta Due was ChIef Clerk of Records, OAG 11 at WhItby JaIl when the WhItby JaIl operatIOn was transferred to the Central East CorrectIOnal Centre In accordance wIth AppendIx 13 However there was no posItIOn at Centre East CorrectIOnal Centre that matched Ms Due's OAG 11 posItIOn/classIficatIOn. UltImately she applIed for and on January 13 2003 was granted a lateral transfer on January 13 2003 to an OAG 11 posItIOn at BrooksIde Youth Centre She worked In that posItIOn for a penod of tIme At the same tIme, Ms Helen HamlIn was an OAG 11 at Millbrook CorrectIOnal Centre The operatIOn at Millbrook CorrectIOnal Centre was transferred to CECC by VIrtue of ArtIcle 2 As wIth Ms Due, there was no match for her posItIOn at CECC In the spnng of 2003 on the common surplus date she was surplus sed and she accepted a condItIOnal assIgnment to Records SupervIsor an OAG 10 at CECC In accordance wIth ArtIcle 20 12 WhIle stIll at BrooksIde Ms Due applIed for a posted posItIOn for an OAG 8 Records Clerk at CECC and was successful She began that assIgnment September 16 2003 On October 17 2003 she filed a gnevance allegIng that she and not Ms HamlIn, should have been gIven the OAG 10 posItIOn because of her hIgher semonty The gnevance must be dIsmIssed. Both Ms HamlIn and Ms Due were properly assIgned. The fact that as of October of 2003 Ms HamlIn who has lesser semonty was workIng In a hIgher rated classIficatIOn IS not a vIOlatIOn of the collectIve agreement but merely a functIOn of the vaganes of the transItIOn process Dated In Toronto thIS 31 st day of August, 2004