The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-2617.Murray.06-06-27 Decision Crown Employees Commission de Nj 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# 2003-2617 UNION# 2003-0247-0005 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (Murray) Union - and - The Crown In RIght of Ontano (Mimstry ofCommumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer BEFORE FelIcIty D Bnggs Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION Stephen GIles Gnevance Officer Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon FOR THE EMPLOYER Lucy Neal Semor Staff RelatIOns Officer Mimstry of Commumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces HEARING May 24 2006 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 1" (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 tune 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 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 unplementatIOn of tlllS agreement 3 It IS thIS 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/arbItrator 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 detennme, that gnevances are to be presented by way of 4 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 behmd the partIcular outstandmg matter In each case thIS has been done to my satIsfactIOn It IS essentIal m thIS 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 On July 15, 2000, Mr James Murray filed a gnevance that alleged IllS Employer Improperly "removed" hIm from employment Pnor to thIS, the gnevor was an unclassIfied CorrectIOnal Officer at the HamIlton-Wentworth DetentIOn Centre On June 7, 2001 a Memorandum of Settlement was sIgned that provIded the gnevor wIth "an unclassIfied contract of employment at the Brantford JaIl" It was further agreed that "upon closure of the Brantford JaIl" the gnevor's contract would be transferred to HWDC subject to perfonnance 5 On October 4,2003 Mr Murray filed a gnevance that stated I gneve that due to my prevIOUS and unjust termmatIOn of employment at the HamIlton- Wentworth DetentIOn Centre, that I have been overlooked, and repnsed agamst for rollover mto full-tIme classIfied status Had I not been unjustly tennmated I would stIll be employed at the HWDC and would have been rolled over as many casuals JUnIor to myself m senIonty have Secondly, there was a competItIOn at the HWDC to whIch I was denIed m my apphcatIOn to apply due to the fact that I am now workmg at the Brantford JaIl, yet another officer workmg here at the Brantford JaIl (Mr Steve Ward), was allowed to apply F or settlement I would like to be gIven a full-tIme posItIOn (eIther filhng a vacancy or havmg a new one created) here at the Brantford JaIl as It IS qUIte apparent that I wIll never be treated wIthout dIscnmmatIOn at the HWDC Secondly, I would like back pay for all the weeks that I dId not receIve my forty hours and would have had I been made full-tIme when I should have I am of the VIew that thIS gnevance must fall The gnevor entered mto a Memorandum of Settlement restonng hun to unclassIfied CorrectIOnal Officer status It was clearly agreed that he would perfonn tlllS work at Brantford JaIl and would only transfer to the HWDC "upon closure" of Brantford JaIl assummg that hIS mtervenmg performance was acceptable Like many other Memoranda, there was a prOVISIOn m the settlement document that made very clear that the agreement was "full and final" Further, he agreed that he had been "fully mfonned" of the "consequences of tlllS settlement" ThIS appears to be an mstance where, some consIderable tIme after the resolutIOn of IllS gnevance, Mr Murray decIded that he made a bad deal He appears to be of tlllS VIew because had he returned to HWDC he mIght have been rolled over 6 It IS tnte but tnle that, sImply put, a deal IS a deal What would become of the system of resolvmg dIsputes m the Ontano Pubhc ServIce If mdIvIduals (on both sIdes) were allowed to wIthdraw theIr agreement months or years after matters settle? Labour relatIOns chaos would prevail In the mstant matter, the gnevor cannot reVIsIt tlllS settlement months after It was executed because CIrcumstances unfolded m a manner that IS not to IllS likmg F or those reasons, the gnevance falls Dated U1 Toronto, thIS 2ih day of June 2006 ] , , I .~" , ..' ; ~.~ e . ~ l-~ - ~~1 .1 F ehcIty D Bnggs VIce-Chair