HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-2138.Meyer.07-02-08 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#2005-213 8
UNION#2005-0234-0232
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
(Meyer)
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Felicity D. Briggs
Stephen Giles
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Lucy Neal
Staff Relations Officer
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
January 23, 2007
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 I" (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.
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.
3
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 pnor 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 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.
4
Mr. Peter Meyer is a Correctional Officer at Maplehurst Correctional Complex. He is now a
classified employee. However, in September of 2005 he filed a grievance that alleged he should
have been rolled over into a classified position at Ontario Correctional Institute in March of
2005.
In a Memorandum of Agreement signed by the parties on May 19, 2005, it was stated that there
would be 11 Resource Position Management positions at OCI. These positions were to be filled
in accordance with seniority. Mr. Meyer suggests that it is unfair and discriminatory that he did
not obtain one of these positions. However, after a review of the facts and submissions made by
the parties, I cannot agree.
In the summer of 2003 Mr. Meyer had been working at OCI as an unclassified Correctional
Officer. At that time he filed a grievance and, as part of the settlement of that dispute Mr. Meyer
was "transferred to the Maplehurst Complex."
Mr. Meyer is now of the view that this move was the direct result of "discriminatory treatment"
from his supervisor. However, the grievor failed to make clear any statutorily prohibited ground
for this alleged discrimination. Further, it is worthy of note that the Memorandum of Agreement
that provided for the grievor's transfer to Maplehurst stated, at paragraph 5 that "the Union and
the grievor agree to withdraw the above noted grievance and consider matters pertaining to the
topic of the grievance resolved".
5
Irrespective of the reasons Mr. Meyer filed his original gnevance or signed the resulting
Memorandum of Agreement, I can find neither a violation of the Memorandum of Agreement
dated May 19, 2005 nor of the Collective Agreement because he failed to become a classified
employee in May of 2005. Indeed, he was an employee at Maplehurst Correctional Complex at
the time.
For those reasons, the grievance must fail.
Date at Toronto, this 8th day of February, 2007.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair