HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-2657.Bodnar.06-11-23 Decision
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas Sl. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
reglement des griefs
des employes de la
Couronne
Nj
~
Ontario
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. : (416) 326-1388
Telec. : (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2003-2657,2004-0147
UNION# 2003-0517-0054,2004-0517-0030
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
BETWEEN
BEFORE
FOR THE UNION
FOR THE EMPLOYER
HEARING
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Bodnar)
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Felicity D. Briggs
Scott Andrews
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Lucy Neal
Staff Relations Officer
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
May 25, 2006.
Union
Employer
Vice-Chair
2
Decision
In September of 1996 the Ministry of Correctional Services notified the Union and
employees at a number of provincial correctional 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 individual grievances that alleged various
breaches of the Collective Agreement including Article 6 and Article 31.15 as well
as grievances relating to the filling of Correctional Officer positions. In response to
these grievances the parties entered into discussions and ultimately agreed upon
two Memoranda of Settlement concerning the application of the collective
agreement during the "first phase of the Ministry's transition". One memorandum,
dated May 3, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "MERC 1" (Ministry Employment
Relations Committee)) outlined conditions for the correctional officers while the
second, dated July 19, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "MERC 2") provided for the
non-correctional officer staff. Both agreements were subject to ratification by
respective principles and settled all of the grievances identified in the related
MERC appendices, filed up to that point in time.
While it was agreed in each case that the settlements were "without prejudice or
precedent to positions either the union or the employer may take on the same
issues in future discussions", the parties recognized that disputes might arise
regarding the implementation of the memoranda. 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 provides me with the jurisdiction to resolve the outstanding
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
filling those positions as they become available 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 determination 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 parties are unable to settle the grievance by
mediation, the mediator/arbitrator shall determine the grievance by arbitration.
When determining the grievance by arbitration, 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/arbitrator shall give a succinct decision
within five (5) days after completing proceedings, unless the parties agree
otherwise.
The transition committee has dealt with dozens of grievances and complaints prior
to the mediation/arbitration process. There have been many other grievances 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 grievances 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 the 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 with their principles to ascertain the facts
or the rationale behind the particular outstanding matter. In each case this has been
done to my satisfaction.
It is essential in this process to avoid accumulating a backlog of disputes. The task
of resolving these issues in a timely fashion was, from the outset, a formidable one.
With ongoing changes in Ministerial boundaries and other organizational
alterations, the task has lately become larger, not smaller. It is for these reasons
that the process I have outlined is appropriate in these circumstances.
Michael Bodnar is a Correctional Officer who filed a grievance on October 16,
2003 and March 31, 2004. Both allege that the Employer violated the Collective
Agreement by failing to grant him a lateral transfer to Central East Correctional
Centre.
The grievor requested a lateral transfer to C.E.C.C. In March of 2003, Mr. Bodnar
was an unclassified Correctional Officer. He was notified in writing on March 6,
2003 that the policy in this regard states that officers must be classified employees
5
in order to be eligible for a lateral transfer. However, his request was kept on file
and he was advised that it might be activated in the event of operational
requirements.
The grievor asserted that other unclassified contracts were transferred to C,E.C.C.
while he remained at T.W.D.C. It was the Employer's position that the grievor
was not transferred with the other unclassified Correctional Officers at this time
because it was foreseen that if the grievor remained at the T.W.D.C. he would
probably achieve classified status. Indeed, that is precisely what occurred. On
October 1, 2003 the grievor was notified that he was being rolled over to classified
status with a retroactive effective date of July 31, 2003. Mr. Bodnar eventually
participated in ajob trade and transferred to C.E.C.C.
There has been no violation of the Collective Agreement and accordingly the
grievances must fail.
Dated in Toronto this 23rd day of November, 2006.
Vice-Chair