The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-3003.Romagnuolo.06-04-27 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# 2003-3003 UNION# 2003-0359-0054 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (Romagnuolo) 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 Lucy Neal Semor Staff RelatIOns Officer Mimstry of Commumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces HEARING January 18 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 tIme 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 unplementatIOn 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 Kun Romagnuolo IS a RehabIhtatIOn Officer at the Central East CorrectIOnal Centre and she filed a gnevance on October 7, 2003 that stated. I feel the employer vIOlated the collectIve agreement by 1) MERC 3 when the allotted number of employees changed from WhItby JaIl to CECC thus dId not elect other who should have been ehgible for transItIOn, 2) breach of verbal contract - MIchael Stephenson made a verbal agreement that all employees from WhItby JaIl who wanted to go to CECC would, 3) AppendIx 13 - RelocatIOn of operatIOn outsIde 40 km by relocatmg from WhItby to CECC, 4) ArtIcle 2 1 Management's RIght to manage I could have been dIrectly assIgned to CECC, 5) ArtIcle 20 - Employment stabIhty 5 By way of remedy the gnevor asked for relocatIOn costs, mOnIes for pam and suffenng, remstatement of sIck days taken due to stress caused by the Improper placement and other related costs The gnevor, m her statement referred to an earher decIsIOn of tlllS Board flowmg from the gnevance of Rob Lake WhIle her personal facts are dIfferent, the allegatIOns are vIrtually IdentIcal WhIle I have some sympathy for the sItuatIOn the gnevor found herself m, I must dIsmIss thIS matter I dIsposed of the allegatIOns regardmg the meetmg attended by Mr MIchael Stephenson m the Lake decIsIOn and It IS not necessary to be repetItIOus However, those comments apply equally to thIS matter Further, as m the Lake matter, It was eVIdent from the letters sent to thIS gnevor as well as to other employees how the transItIOn process would unfold. In partIcular, m September of 2003 the gnevor receIved vanous optIOns regardmg her employment On October 22, 2002 the gnevor was mfonned that the Employer and the UnIon agreed that all classIfied employees currently employed at the WhItby JaIl would be provIded an opportunIty to accept or dechne a posItIOn at CECC on the basIs of senIonty She was mfonned that all "employees assIgned to a posItIOn at the Central East CorrectIOnal Centre as a result of thIS exerCIse wIll rem am at theIr respectIve current work sIte untIl the effectIve date of the relocatIOn of the employee IS detennmed by the Employer" The gnevor requested such an assIgnment She was told m a letter dated November 5, 2002 that she had msufficIent senIonty to attam such a posItIOn Accordmgly she was mformed that she would have certam nghts under ArtIcle 20 of the CollectIve Agreement In January 2003 she was mformed that the JaIl would be decommISSIOnIng and that she had ArtIcle 20 nghts She elected redeployment nghts on Apnl 22, 2003 On 6 May 1, 2003 she was told that she had a CorrectIOnal Officer posItIOn at the Metro Toronto East DetentIOn Centre and was to report to work as of May 5, 2003 I have revIewed the Employer's documentatIOn as well as the gnevor's wntten statement SImply put, there IS no vIOlatIOn of the CollectIve Agreement or any MERC Agreement Accordmgly, the gnevance IS denIed. Dated m Toronto thIS 27th day of Apnl, 2006 VIce-Chair