HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-1443.Tardiel et al.09-03-27 Decision
Commission de
Crown Employees
Grievance
règlement des griefs
Settlement Board
des employés de la
Couronne
Suite 600 Bureau 600
180 Dundas St. West 180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396 Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB#2005-1443
UNION#2005-0530-0022
Group ?A? & ?B?
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Tardiel et al)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFOREVice-Chair
Christopher J. Albertyn
FOR THE UNION
David Wright, Ryder Wright Blair &
Holmes LLP, Barristers & Solicitors
Eric del Junco, Barrister and Solicitor
Donald McLeod, The McLeod Group,
Barristers and Solicitors
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Lisa Compagnone
Ministry of Government Services
Counsel
HEARING
March 23, 2009.
Decision
[1]The Board?s decision August 11, 2008 set out the parties? organizational
objectives, intended to provide systemic remedies for the various complaints of
racism and discrimination at the Toronto Jail. That decision also described the
process contemplated for realizing the objectives. Part of the implementation
required the establishment by the Union and the Employer of subcommittees at
the Toronto Jail. The task of those subcommittees is to make proposals to the
Coordinating Committee, established under the August 11, 2008 decision, for
action to implement the objectives.
[2]Concerns have been expressed by the Union regarding the working of the
subcommittees. In order to address those concerns, and to advance the
implementation of the objectives described in the August 11, 2008 decision, I
issue the following directions.
[3]I will undertake to review the August 11, 2008 decision. The purpose of the
review will be to separate those objectives that require action (?the action
objectives?) from those that stand as declarations of intent for decent behaviour at
the Toronto Jail, but do not require further action (?the principle objectives?).
This separation is intended to simplify the work of the subcommittees, so that
they can focus on only the action objectives, those that require action to be
accomplished.
[4]I will endeavour to have this task completed by the end of March 2009, after
having conferred with the parties.
[5]Upon receipt of my decision separating the objectives, the Employer will, by
April 7, 2009, inform the Union in writing of any initiatives it has underway, or
contemplates having underway, that will impact on any of the action objectives.
In this information the Employer will advise of which action objectives will likely
2
be affected by the initiatives. The purpose of this information is to save the
subcommittees the trouble of having to prepare action proposals that could be
affected by initiatives the Employer has undertaken, or will shortly be
undertaking.
[6]The subcommittees will meet as often as necessary to complete their work by
April 17, 2009. To the extent they cannot agree on particular actions, the
proposals raised should nonetheless be referred to the Coordinating Committee.
[7]Between April 17, 2009 and May 8, 2009 the Coordinating Committee will
review the proposed actions received from the subcommittees and decide which
of them it will adopt as the method of achieving the various objectives. For those
action proposals they adopt, and for such other actions they may agree upon, they
will assign particular individual(s) to have responsibility for undertaking the
action, with a date by which the action will be completed. The Coordinating
Committee may stipulate periodic report-back dates, as it considers necessary.
[8]The Coordinating Committee will report to me, with counsel for the parties, on
Monday, May 11, 2009. To the extent that action plans have not been
implemented by the Coordinating Committee for action objectives, I will facilitate
agreement between the parties on what those actions should be, who will have
responsibility for their completion, and by when. To the extent the parties cannot
agree, I will resolve the difference by decision. This facilitation will occur on
May 11, 13 and 14, 2009. The aim is that, by May 14, 2009, all of the actions
required to achieve the action objectives in the August 11, 2008 decision will be
resolved. Furthermore, by then, clear responsibility will be assigned, with a date
for completion of each assigned task. A date will be set for review of the
prescribed actions.
3
[9]Certain individual grievances have not been resolved by mediation. Those will be
set down for hearing on July 9 and August 6, 2009, and on such additional dates
as are yet to be agreed.
th
Dated at Toronto this 27 day of March 2009.
Christopher J. Albertyn
Vice-Chair
4