The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007-1651.Butsch et al.09-06-05 Decision Commission de Crown Employees Grievance Settlement règlement des griefs 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#2007-1651, 2007-1711, 2007-2833, 2007-2835, 2007-3182 UNION#2007-0368-0121, 2007-0368-0129, 2007-0368-0149, 2007-0368-0151, 2007-0368-0185 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Butsch et al) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer BEFOREFelicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair FOR THE UNIONStephen Giles Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer FOR THE EMPLOYERGreg Gledhill Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services Staff Relations Officer HEARING October 31, 2008 and May 28, 2009. - 2 - Decision [1]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. [2]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 - [3]It is this agreement that provides me with the jurisdiction to resolve the outstanding matters. [4]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. [5]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. [6]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 - 4 - 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. [7]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. [8]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. [9]Mr. Chris Butsch, Mr. Steven Rae and Mr. Shawn Bateman all filed grievances that allege the Employer violated Appendix 24 and various other provisions of the Collective Agreement by improperly calculating their - 5 - seniority when undertaking rollovers. By way of remedy each requested compensation as well as conversion to classified status. [10]The grievors allege, amongst other things, that the Employer should not have included hours beyond 1912 hours in any year in rollover calculations and the Employer failed to include hours taken for Union leave in the calculations. [11]The parties have agreed to terms regarding the rollover of Correctional Officers in a Memorandum of Agreement. Those terms are, generally speaking, more generous than those found in the Collective Agreement. After considering the facts and submissions of the parties I must dismiss these grievances. The Employer has not violated any of the agreed upon terms that govern rollovers. [12]One of the grievances suggests that Correctional Officers were not given an opportunity to dispute the hours that were posted for the purposes of roll- overs. However, even if the disputed hours were included, the grievors would not have been rolled over. [13]Furthermore, the hours at issue were calculated in accordance with this Re: MCSCS & OPSEU Board?s earlier decisions (GSB # 2002-2095 July 17, 2003, August 12, 2003, and July 28, 2008. - 6 - [14]The grievances are denied. th Dated at Toronto this 5 day of June 2009. Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair