HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-2440.Chmurzynski.07-01-30 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
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. : (416) 326-1388
Telec. : (416) 326-1396
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
Nj
~
Ontario
GSB# 2005-2440
UNION# 2005-0234-0290
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
BETWEEN
BEFORE
FOR THE UNION
FOR THE EMPLOYER
HEARING
DEADLINE FOR
WRITTEN
SUBMISSIONS
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Chmurzynski)
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Barry Stephens
Stephen Giles
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Pauline Jones
Staff Relations Officer
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
December 6,2006.
December 19, 2006.
Union
Employer
Vice-Chair
2
Decision
INTRODUCTION
The parties have agreed to a Med-Arb Protocol, signed February 27, 2006. It is not necessary to
reproduce the entire Protocol here. Suffice it to say that, as part of the Protocol, the parties have
agreed to a "True Mediation-Arbitration" process, wherein each provides the vice-chair with
submissions, which include the facts and authorities each relies upon. The process adopted by
the parties provides for a canvassing of the facts during the mediation phase under the Protocol.
Arbitration decisions are issued in accordance with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement,
without reasons, and are without prejudice or precedent. The parties were unable to resolve this
matter in mediation.
Accordingly, the matter has been referred to me as a True
Mediation/Arbitration decision under the Protocol.
FACTS
In October 2005, the Mimico facility was looking for correctional officers at other institutions to
work three-month secondments. The grievor was interested in transferring to Mimico. He heard
about the secondment opportunity, and wrote to the superintendents of both facilities expressing
interest. The grievor was advised that the superintendent at Maplehurst had decided that
employees there would not be offered the Mimico opportunity. The grievor asserts that this was
a breach of his rights. He seeks a declaration, as well as compensation for the traveling expenses
he would have incurred had he worked at Mimico for three months. The employer responds that
the decision to decline the Mimico opportunity at Maplehurst was based on the ongoing
difficulties with staffing at Maplehurst, and was for bona fide business reasons. The employer
points out that the opportunities in question were not posted positions under the collective
agreement.
3
DECISION
The grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 30th day of January, 2007.
Barry