Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-2689.Union.10-08-09 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#2009-2689 UNION#2010-0999-0003 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Union) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Attorney General) Employer BEFOREFelicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair FOR THE UNIONStephens Giles Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer FOR THE EMPLOYERPeter Dailleboust Ministry of Government Services Legal Services Branch Counsel HEARING March 18, July 30, 2010. - 2 - Decision [1]In the collective bargaining negotiations that took place in 2005, the parties agreed to insert a new Appendix 32 into the Collective Agreement. That provision provided for a change of status for a number of employees from fixed term to the new category of ?flexible part time? (hereinafter referred to as ?FPT?). At the outset the Employer referred to this initiative as the ?Revitalized Workforce Project? (?RWP?). As of January 1, 2008 it has been commonly known as ?Integrated Labour Relations Strategy? or ?ILRS?. [2]This change brought about many employee questions and ultimately, a number of disputes/grievances. [3]By all accounts, there were a number of areas in the initial language of Appendix 32 that required clarification. Accordingly, in an effort to continue to work together through many of the identified problem areas, the parties negotiated a series of agreements regarding the various matters needing to be addressed. Additionally, in an ongoing effort to resolve outstanding issues that continued to arise, amendments were made to Appendix 32 in the next (and now current) Collective Agreement. [4]On September 13, 2007, the parties agreed to a number of amendments in a fairly comprehensive Memorandum of Agreement. This Agreement resolved the identified disputes that had been outstanding and further recognized that future grievances might arise. In large measure, the amendments agreed upon in the September 13, 2007 Memorandum of Agreement were incorporated into Appendix 32 of the current Collective Agreement. [5]Since September of 2007, approximately two hundred grievances have been filed. In an effort to resolve these matters efficiently, the parties - 3 - worked together to create a process for the efficient litigation of all outstanding issues. To that end, a number of grievances have been heard and decided by the Board. Those decisions have resolved a number of outstanding matters. [6]Given the passage of time and the number of grievances that had yet to be determined, the parties agreed that it was in their collective interest to further streamline the litigation process. In considering various options, it was agreed to investigate the possibility of adopting a process similar to that utilized by the Union and the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services regarding ?transition grievances?. Those grievances, which were many hundred in number, were filed as the result of the major re-organization within that Ministry. Given my experience in that process my assistance was sought in this matter. [7]At our hearing held on January 18, 2010, the parties agreed to a number of issues including: All grievances outstanding as of January 18, 2010 and those o filed in the foreseeable future flowing from the interpretation, application and administration of Appendix 32 will be referred to me for determination. While it is understood that all decisions under this process will o be consistent, they are without precedent or prejudice in accordance with Article 22.16.2. I will determine the process to be followed for the litigation of o these matters. [8] The process for the litigation of the remaining grievances should be efficient and provide a timely and appropriate final resolution. In arriving at my decision in this regard, consideration was given to Article 22.16.2 which states: - 4 - 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. [9] As was the case in the ?transition? process, there are a large number of grievances to determine and the parties are agreed that ?traditional arbitration? will not serve their purpose. Therefore, in accordance with my jurisdiction to so determine, these matters will be litigated on the following basis: Grievances are to be presented by way of each party presenting a statement of the facts with appropriate documents, if any, and accompanying submissions. I understand that in many cases, particulars have been provided and documents exchanged. That preparatory work should further assist efficiency. I recognize that some grievors and managerial employees may wish to attend and provide oral evidence. However, given the task at hand and the time by which to do it, I order only the committee members from each party will attend. It may be that in a few instances some confusion might arise regarding certain facts. It might also happen that I will find that insufficient evidence has been provided. In those instances, should they arise, I will direct the parties to speak again with their principles to ascertain the facts or the rationale behind the particular outstanding matter. In the event I find there is still uncertainty regarding facts, I reserve the right to ask for viva voce evidence. It is my hope that this need shall never arise. - 5 - Hopefully decisions can be issued within a relatively short period of time following submissions. My decisions will contain brief reasons and sufficient rationale so as to provide the parties with an interpretation thereby allowing them to move forward. [10] The parties asked the Board to consider whether there is any obligation upon the Employer to annually review the placement of FPT employees in the two minimum annual hour categories. [11] The parties first negotiated the FPT categories and conditions in round of bargaining that led to the 2005 Collective Agreement. In that version of Appendix 32, there were five different minimum annual hour categories. There was also a provision that stated the Employer and the Union would establish a joint committee with the sole purpose of ?assisting the Ministry in assigning employees to the hours tiers and the consultations contemplated under Section 2?. [12] On September 13, 2007, the parties agreed upon a comprehensive Memorandum of Agreement in an effort to ?resolve issues related to the court support workforce as they pertain to Appendix 32?. Part of that agreement was a method of reducing the number of annual minimum hour categories from five to two. There was no longer a reference to a committee or a process for review of the category assignments. Therefore, in my view there was no longer an obligation upon the Employer to perform an annual review of work assignments. [13] It is also worth noting that all Appendix 32 grievances filed as of September 13, 2007 were ?fully and finally resolved? as the result of the Memorandum of Agreement which was ratified by each of the parties. - 6 - [14] Ms. Marlene Hollingsworth filed individual grievances in this regard on February 11, 2010. According to the Employer, those grievances should be dismissed because they were filed in an untimely fashion. It is not necessary for me to make a determination as to the timeliness of the individual grievances because, as noted above, after the ratification of the September 13, 2007 Memorandum of Agreement there was no ongoing obligation for review. Dated at Toronto this 9 day of August 2010. th Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair