HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-3253.Hanson.05-05-03 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# 2003-3253
UNION# 2003-0234-0550
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Hanson) Union
- 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 March 7 2005
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 willie 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 tlllS agreement
3
It IS tlus agreement that provIdes me wIth the JunsdIctIOn to resolve the outstandmg
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
filhng those posItIOns as they become aVailable throughout varIOUS phases of the
restructunng GIven the complexIty and SIze of the task of restnlctunng and
decommIssIOmng 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 determmatIOn 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 / arb 1 trator 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
4
NotwIthstandmg that some gnevors mIght wIsh to attend and provIde oral
eVIdence, to date, tlus 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 belund the partIcular outstandmg matter In each case tlus has been
done to my satIsfactIOn
It IS essentIal m tlus process to aVOId accumulatmg a backlog of dIsputes The task
of resolvmg these Issues m a tImely fashIOn was, from the outset, a formIdable one
WIth ongomg changes m MmIstenal boundanes and other organIzatIonal
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
RIck Hanson IS an Industnal Officer 2 In February of 2001 he was assIgned to
work at TRILCOR, Guelph CorrectIOnal Centre In October of that same year he
was told to report to Maplehurst CorrectIOnal Complex to work m the laundry He
was provIded a MmIstry velucle for tlus penod untIl the end of that temporary
assIgnment
In November of 2002 he was agam assIgned to Maplehurst but tlus tune no
MmIstry velucle was provIded. Accordmg to the gnevor, he was told to use Ius
own vehIcle and was told that he would be compensated for forty kIlometers each
tnp, that IS, the dIstance from one facIhty to the other ThIS assIgnment ended m
March of 2003
5
On May 12,2003, the gnevor receIve another temporary assIgnment to Maplehurst
WIth the same arrangements He filed a gnevance dated November 26, 2003
allegmg that he was not paid proper mIleage for the penod of hIS temporary
assIgnments He contmued to work at Maplehurst on a temporary assIgnment untIl
Apnl 1, 2005 when he was pennanently assIgned to that posItIOn By way of
remedy he asked to be compensated for the dIfference between what he should
have been paid and what he was paid.
After consIdenng the submIssIOns of the partIes I am of the VIew that, m
accordance wIth ArtIcle 13 1 the gnevor IS entItled to the dIfference between the
actual kIlometers he drove and the mIleage allowance (for forty kIlometers per tnp)
that he receIved.
It IS noted that there IS no outstandmg Issue regardmg travel tune that IS before me
Further, for the purposes of clanty tlus entItlement to the mIleage ended as of Ius
last shIft pnor to Apnll, 2005
HIS gnevance IS allowed. I rem am seIzed m the event of any dIfficulty m the
ImplementatIOn of thIS award.
Dated llljronto t1us3'~ day of May, 2005
.. 'II ~
~
I