HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-0143.Banks.09-10-20 Decision
Commission de Commission de
Crown Employeess
Grievance Settlement Grievance Settlement
règlement des griefs règlement des griefs
BoardBoard
des employés de la des employés de la
Couronne Couronne
Suite 600 Suite 600 Bureau 600 Bureau 600
180 Dundas St. West 180 Dundas St. West 180, rue Dundas Ouest 180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tél. : (416) 326-1388 Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396 Fax (416) 326-1396 Téléc. : (416) 326-1396 Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB#2008-0143 GSB#2008-0143
UNION#2008-0369-0103UNION#2008-0369-0103
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
UUnnddeerr
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTHE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT TIVE BARGAINING ACT
BBeeffoorree
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEENBETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
èÏÔÎÏ
(Banks)
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFOREVice-Chair
Felicity D. Briggs
FOR THE UNION
Stephen Giles
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Greg Gledhill
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
Staff Relations Officer
HEARINGMay 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]It is this agreement that provides me with the jurisdiction to resolve the outstanding
matters.
- 3 -
[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 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
- 4 -
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. Bradley Banks has been a Correctional Officer at the Central North Correctional
Centre since 2002. He was absent from the workplace due to sick leave when the private
jail was being transitioned back into the OPS. It was his contention that he was not
offered employment with the OPS until May 2007 and that assertion was not disputed by
the Employer.
[10]Mr. Banks alleges that he should have been offered a position within the OPS at the same
time as many other CNCC employees. He grieves this Employer failure and by way of
remedy he wants lost compensation.
[11]At the time that the CNCC was being brought into the Ontario Public Service the parties
entered into a Memorandum of Agreement regarding the conditions of the transition of
employees. Further included in that agreement was a dispute resolution mechanism in
the event that individuals felt aggrieved by a failure to receive a job offer.
[12]The process of litigating those disputes has been completed for some time. This
grievance is out of time and therefore denied.
- 5 -
th
Dated at Toronto this 20 day of October 2009.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair