The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-1407.Martinoni et al.07-01-23 Decision Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board Commission de reglement des griefs des employes de la Couronne Nj ~ Ontario Suite 600 180 Dundas Sl. West Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Bureau 600 180, rue Dundas Ouest Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tel. : (416) 326-1388 Telec. : (416) 326-1396 GSB# 2003-1407,2003-1517,2003-2706,2003-3264, 2003-3280, 2003-3973, 2003-3988, 2004-0085, 2004-0176,2004-1575,2004-1690,2004-1980,2004-1983,2004-3092,2004-3443,2006-0107 UNION# 2003-0234-0216,2003-0234-0253, 2003-0234-0506, 2003-0234-0561, 2003-0234-0574, 2003-0368-0019,2004-0368-0001,2003-0341-0042,2004-0234-0079,2004-0368-0048, 2004-0234-0410,2004-0368-0079,2004-0368-0082,2004-0438-0029,2004-0248-0206, 2005-0108-0080 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Martinoni et al.) - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Union Employer Felicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair BEFORE Stephen Giles Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union FOR THE UNION Greg Gledhill Staff Relations Officer Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services FOR THE EMPLOYER October 25,2006. HEARING 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. During the many months the parties have engaged in this expedited dispute resolution process we have encountered a number of grievances with striking similarities. It was always the intention of the parties that these transition decisions would be brief and it was hoped that an award on a particular matter would be applied to other outstanding grievances. To some extent this has occurred but we are finding that there remain grievances which are virtually identical in nature to matters that have been previously heard and determined. This has been particularly true in those instances where there has been a claim by Correctional Officers for travel time and mileage. For that reason, the parties have asked that I issue a 5 decision listing these travel time and mileage grievances and my determination of the facts without reasons. I concur that we are in a point in this process where it is appropriate to do so because there is little utility in repeating similar fact situations or the reasons for my determination. Therefore, the following grievances have been heard and are denied: Grievor Gordon Martinoni Mike McCoy Paul Powis Sharon McNabb Paul Ewing Nancy Dennison Paul Hennesey Raimund Hanske Grant Whelan Michael O'Brien Erica Cranford Michelle Brown-Andrews Maureen Lagana Don Desjardine Todd T atryn Les GSB Number 2003-1407 2003-1517 2003-2706 2003-3264 2003-3280 2003-3973 2003-3988 2004-0085 2004-0176 2004-1575 2004-1690 2004-1980 2004-1983 2004-3092 2004-3443 2006-0107 Dated in Toronto this 23rd day of January, 2007. Felicity D. B Vice-Chair OPSEU Number 2003-0234-0216 2003-0234-0253 2003-0234-0506 2003-0234-0561 2003-0234-0574 2003-0368-0019 2004-0368-0001 2003-0341-0042 2004-0234-0079 2004-0368-0048 2004-0234-0410 2004-0368-0079 2004-0368-0082 2004-0438-0029 2004-0248-0206 2005-0108-0080