HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-0797.Wilson et al.07-02-23 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# 2003-0797,2003-3799,2004-0182,2004-0891, 2004-1545, 2006-0960
UNION# 2003-0517-0025,2004-0229-0001, 2004-0234-0086, 2004-0234-0284, 2004-0368-0044,
2006-0467 -0008
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Wilson et al.)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
Felicity D. Briggs
Vice-Chair
BEFORE
Stephen Giles
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE UNION
Lucy Neal
Senior Staff Relations Officer
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
FOR THE EMPLOYER
November 17, 2006 and January 23,2007.
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 OPSEU Number GSB Number
Angela Wilson 2003-0517-0025 2003-0797
Stephanie Trogrlic 2004-0229-0001 2003-3799
Anita Mastracci 2004-0234-0086 2004-0182
Laurie Chalmers 2005-0234-0284 2004-0891
Jennifer Sipila 2004-0368-0044 2004-1545
Gerald Valliquette 2006-0467 -0008 2006-0960
Dated in Toronto this 23rd day of February 2007.
I