HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-1706.Thurston.11-05-10 Decision2011 - OPSEU (Thurston) and Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, GSB#2009-1706, (Briggs)
Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board Suite 600 180 Dundas St. West Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Commission de règlement des griefs des employés
de la Couronne Bureau 600 180, rue Dundas Ouest Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tél. : (416) 326-1388 Téléc. : (416) 326-1396 GSB#2009-1706 UNION#2009-0368-0111 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Thurston) Union -and -The Crown in Right of
Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer BEFORE Felicity D. Briggs Vice-ChairFOR THE UNION Stephen Giles Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance
Officer FOR THE EMPLOYER Greg Gledhill Ministry of Government Services Centre for Employee Relations Staff Relations Officer HEARING January 24, 2011 and May 2, 2011.
-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 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.
-3 -[5] When I was initially invited to hear these 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. [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] Jeanette Thurston is
an unclassified Registered Practical Nurse at CECC and she filed a grievance on August 19, 2009 that alleged the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by failing to grant her a
classified position.
-4 -[10] On March 31, 2008 the parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement that stated, amongst other things, that non Correctional Officer vacancies that had received Ministerial
approval would be filled in a certain manner for the period between the signing of the Agreement and December 31, 2008. [11] On November 21, 2008 a classified RPN sent an unsigned letter
asking for a three-month extension to his leave of absence for personal reasons. It was noted that if the extension were not granted he would have to resign. [12] On January 13, 2009
the same RPN sent a signed letter to the Deputy Superintendent resigning effective immediately. [13] It is this position to which the grievor asserted she was entitled. [14] According
to the documents, the vacancy did not occur until after January 13, 2009 which is outside of the Memorandum of Agreement. [15] For that reason, the grievance must be dismissed. Date
at Toronto this 10th day of May 2011. Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair
- 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 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.
- 3 -
[5] When I was initially invited to hear these 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.
[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] Jeanette Thurston is an unclassified Registered Practical Nurse at CECC and she filed a
grievance on August 19, 2009 that alleged the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by
failing to grant her a classified position.
- 4 -
[10] On March 31, 2008 the parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement that stated,
amongst other things, that non Correctional Officer vacancies that had received Ministerial
approval would be filled in a certain manner for the period between the signing of the Agreement
and December 31, 2008.
[11] On November 21, 2008 a classified RPN sent an unsigned letter asking for a three-month
extension to his leave of absence for personal reasons. It was noted that if the extension were not
granted he would have to resign.
[12] On January 13, 2009 the same RPN sent a signed letter to the Deputy Superintendent
resigning effective immediately.
[13] It is this position to which the grievor asserted she was entitled.
[14] According to the documents, the vacancy did not occur until after January 13, 2009
which is outside of the Memorandum of Agreement.
[15] For that reason, the grievance must be dismissed.
Date at Toronto this 10th day of May 2011.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair