The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-1067.Stickle.06-04-27 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# 2003-1067 UNION# 2002-0233-0041 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Stickle) 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 18, 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. Gary Stickle is a Correctional Officer w ho in May of 2002 filed a grievance that stated: Contrary to Article 2 (Management?s Rights), the MERC Agreement, the Policy on Lateral Transfers and any other related artic les, acts or legislation the Employer has denied myself th e opportunity to transfer/receive a temporary assignment to the Brantford Jail/Burtch CC/HamiltonWentworthDetentionCen tre/Maplehurst CC and GATU and thus transferred my work location to an institution slated for closure. 5 The grievor was of the view that he ought to have been entitled to stay at GATU until its closure. According to the Union it is the grievor?s view that he was the first to ask to remain and therefor e should have been allowed to do so. According to MERC 1 Agreement at page 3, paragraph 6, mu tual agreement is required for an employee to remain at a wo rk location after the inmates have left the institution. I understand that the Em ployer would not agree to the grievor?s request and therefore he was moved. Ther e was no evidence of discrimination or bad faith and for all of those r easons the grievance is denied. th Dated in Toronto this 27 day of April, 2006. Felicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair