HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-0243.Lemieux et al.09-10-22 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#2007-0243, 2007-0244, 2007-0245, 2007-0246, 2007-1074, 2007-1084 GSB#2007-0243, 2007-0244, 2007-0245, 2007-0246, 2007-1074, 2007-1084
UNION#2007-0234-0018, 2007-0234-0019, 2007-0234-0020, 2007-0234-0021, 2007-0234-0086, UNION#2007-0234-0018, 2007-0234-0019, 2007-0234-0020, 2007-0234-0021, 2007-0234-0086,
2007-0234-00982007-0234-0098
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
(Lemieux et al)
- 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
September 18, 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.
[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
- 3 -
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
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.
- 4 -
[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]On November 16, 2006 I wrote a decision allowing a number of grievances regarding
travel time and mileage. I understand that the monies owing have been paid by the
Employer. However the matter of whether interest should be paid on those monies
remained an issue in dispute between the parties. In fact, a number of subsequent
grievances were filed regarding the Employer?s failure to pay interest.
[10]I heard submissions regarding this matter and I order interest to be paid to the grievors.
This supplemental decision will dispose of the following grievances:
2007-0234-0018
2007-0234-0019
2007-0234-0020
2007-0234-0021
2007-0234-0086
2007-0234-0098
nd
Dated at Toronto this 22 day of October 2009.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair