The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005-0173.Flegg et al.05-11-29 Decision Crown Employees Commission de Nj Grievance reglement des griefs Settlement 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# 2005-0173 2005-0175 2005-0180 2005-0181 2005-0182,2005-0184 2005-0196 2005-0197 2005-0199 2005-0203 2005-0204 2005-0206 2005-0211 2005-0212,2005-0213 2005-0214 2005-0217 2005-0225 2005-0226 2005-0235 2005-0238 2005-0245 2005-0252,2005-0259 2005-0881 2005-0883 2005-0885 2005-0887 2005-0889 2005-0890 UNION# 2005-0440-0022, 2005-0440-0024 2005-0440-0029 2005-0440-0030 2005-0440-0031 2005-0440-0033 2005-0440-0044 2005-0440-0045 2005-0440-0047 2005-0440-0051 2005-0440-0052, 2005-0440-0054 2005-0440-0059 2005-0440-0060 2005-0440-0061 2005-0440-0062,2005-0440-0065 2005-0440-0073 2005-0440-0074 2005-0440-0083 2005-0440-0086 2005-0440-0093 2005-0440-0099 2005-0440-0106 2005-0440-0122, 2005-0440-0124 2005-0440-0126 2005-0440-0128 2005-0440-0130 2005-0440-0131 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (Flegg et al ) Union - and - The Crown III 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 Lucy Neal Semor Staff RelatIOns Officer Mimstry of Commumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces HEARING October 14 2005 2 DeCISIon In September of 1996 the MmIstry of CorrectIOnal ServIces notIfied the UnIon 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 UnIon 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 tllne The partIes contmued to negotIate and agree upon further condItIons regardmg the transItIOn matters MERC 3 was sIgned by the partIes on February 25, 2002 WhIle It was agreed m each case that the settlements were "wIthout prejUdICe or precedent to posItIOns eIther the UnIon or the employer may take on the same Issues m future dIscussIOns", the partIes recognIzed that dIsputes mIght anse regardmg the ImplementatIOn of the memoranda. Accordmgly, they agreed, at Part G, paragraph 8 3 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 llnplementatIOn of tlllS agreement It IS tlllS 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 decommISSIOnIng 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 wItllln five (5) days after completmg proceedmgs, unless the partIes agree otherwIse 4 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 detennme, that gnevances are to be presented by way of each party presentmg a statement of the facts wIth accompanymg submIssIOns NotwIthstandmg that some gnevors mIght wIsh to attend and provIde oral eVIdence, to date, tlllS 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 belllnd the partIcular outstandmg matter In each case tlllS has been done to my satIsfactIOn It IS essentIal m tlllS 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 There were approxImately tlllrty gnevances filed by twelve employees that alleged vanous vIOlatIOns of ArtIcle 11 I have appended a hst of these gnevances at Schedule A. 5 It was the posItIOn of the gnevors that because the workplace was m a state of flux there were no pennanent assIgnments Therefore, they are entItled to all of the prOVISIOns of ArtIcle 11 After heanng the facts and submIssIOns of the partIes I must dIsagree In my VIew, there IS no questIOn that at the tllne that the gnevances were filed, each of the gnevors was permanently assIgned to a worksIte ArtIcle 11 of the CollectIve Agreement, m total, apphes to "employees who do not attend at or work from any permanent MinIstry facIhty" Therefore, the gnevances are denIed. Dated m Toronto thIS 29th day of November, 2005 . ~ ;; y VIce-Chair Schedule A G rievor OPSEU File # 1 Burke 2005-0440-0126 - 2 Coon 2005-0440-0106 - 3 Flegg 2005-0440-0022 4 Flegg 2005-0440-0024 5 Fleming 2005-0440-0051 6 Fleming 2005-0440-0052 7 Fleming 2005-0440-0054 8 Fleming 2005-0440-0128 9 Foreman 2005-0440-0099 - 1 0 Lee 2005-0440-0073 - 11 Lee 2005-0440-0074 - 12 Monn 2005-0440-0065 - 13 Monn 2005-0440-0122 - 14 Norton 2005-0440-0029 - 15 Norton 2005-0440-0030 - 16 Norton 2005-0440-0031 - 17 Norton 2005-0440-0033 - 18 Norton 2005-0440-0124 - 19 Preston 2005-0440-0083 - 20 Preston 2005-0440-0086 - 21 Robertson 2005-0440-0059 - 22 Robertson 2005-0440-0060 - 23 Robertson 2005-0440-0061 - 24 Robertson 2005-0440-0062 - 25 Robertson 2005-0440-0130 - 26 Robinson 2005-0440-0093 - 27 Truszlnskl 2005-0440-0044 - 28 Truszlnskl 2005-0440-0045 - 29 Truszlnskl 2005-0440-0047 - 30 Truszlnskl 2005-0440-0131