HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-2156.Moretti.06-04-26 Decision
Commission de
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
règlement des griefs
Board
des employés de la
Couronne
Suite 600 Bureau 600
180 Dundas St. West 180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396 Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2002-2156
UNION# 2002-0263-0033
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Moretti)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFORE Vice-Chair
Felicity D. Briggs
FOR THE UNION Scott Andrews
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER Lucy Neal
Senior Staff Relations Officer
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
HEARING
January 16, 2006.
2
Decision
In September of 1996 the Ministry of Co rrectional Services notified the Union and
employees at a number of provincial corr ectional institutions 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 policy and i ndividual grievances th at alleged various
breaches of the collective agreement includi ng article 6 and artic le 31.15 as well as
grievances relating to the filling of corr ectional officer positions. In response to
these grievances the parties entered in to discussions and ultimately agreed upon
two Memoranda of Settlement concerni ng the application of the collective
agreement during the ?first phase of the Ministry?s transition?. One memorandum,
dated May 3, 2000 (hereinaft er referred to as ?MERC 1? (Ministry Employment
Relations Committee)) outlined conditions for the correctional officers while the
second, dated July 19, 2001 (hereinafter re ferred to as ?MERC 2?) provided for the
non-correctional officer staff. Both agreem ents were subject to ratification by
respective principles and settled all of the grievances identif ied in the related
MERC appendices, filed up to that point in time.
While it was agreed in each case that th e settlements were ?without prejudice or
precedent to positions either the union or the employer may take on the same
issues in future discussions?, the part ies recognized that disputes might arise
regarding the implementation of the memora nda. Accordingly, they agreed, at Part
G, paragraph 8:
The parties agree that they will request that Felicity Briggs, Vice Chair of the
Grievance Settlement Board will be seized with resolving any disputes that arise
from the implementation of this agreement.
3
It is this agreement that pr ovides me with the jurisdicti on to resolve the outstanding
matters.
Both MERC 1 and MERC 2 are lengthy and comprehensive documents that
provide for the identification of vacanci es and positions and the procedure for
filling those positions as they become ava ilable throughout various phases of the
restructuring. Given the complexity and size of the task of restructuring and
decommissioning of institutions, it is not surprising that a number of grievances
and disputes arose. This is another of the disputes that have arisen under the
MERC Memorandum of Settlement.
When I was initially invited to hear theses transition disputes, the parties agreed
that process to be followed for the de termination 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
grievance by mediation. If the partie s are unable to settle the grievance by
mediation, the mediator/arbitrator shall determine the grievance by arbitration.
When determining the grievance by arbitra tion, the mediator/arbitrator may limit
the nature and extent of the evidence and may impose such conditions as he or
she considers appropriate. The mediator/a rbitrator shall give a succinct decision
within five (5) days after completi ng proceedings, unless the parties agree
otherwise.
The transition committee has dealt with do zens of grievances and complaints prior
to the mediation/arbitration process. Th ere have been many other grievances and
issues raised before me that I have e ither assisted the parties to resolve or
arbitrated. However, there ar e still a large number that have yet to be dealt with. It
is because of the vast numbers of grieva nces that I have decided, in accordance
with my jurisdiction to so determine, that grievances are to be presented by way of
4
each party presenting a statement of th e facts with accompanying submissions.
Notwithstanding that some grievors 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 arise from the continuing transition
process.
Not surprisingly, 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 w ith their principles to ascertain the facts
or the rationale behind the particular outst anding matter. In each case this has been
done to my satisfaction.
It is essential in this pr ocess to avoid accumulating a b acklog of disputes. The task
of resolving these issues in a timely fashi on was, from the outset, a formidable one.
With ongoing changes in Ministeria l boundaries and other organizational
alterations, the task has late ly become larger, not smalle r. It is for these reasons
that the process I have outlined is appropriate in these circumstances.
Ms. Angela Moretti was an unclassified C ook 2 at the Vanier Centre for Women,
Brampton. On October 11, 2002 she filed a gr ievance that alleged a violation of the
Collective Agreement because the Employer failed to convert her to classified
status.
The Union filed a document that set out the grievor?s view of her hours worked.
The employment record for Ms. Moretti wa s also provided by the Employer. The
calculation of the grievor?s hours were di fferent in those two documents. In any
event, even accepting the grievor?s view of her hours worked in the eighteen
5
month period, she had insufficient hours for conversion. In order for the grievor to
be converted during this peri od she would have had to work twenty eight hundred
and sixty eight hours. According to Ms Moretti, her hours wo rked were twenty
seven hundred and thirty six.
After reviewing the documents and the partie s? submissions, I am of the view that
the grievance must be denied because the grievor did no t work the requisite hours
needed for conversion.
th
Dated in Toronto this 26 day of April, 2006.
Felicity D. Briggs
Vice-Chair