HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-2095.Union.11-11-02 DecisionCommission de
Crown Employees
Grievance
UqJOHPHQWGHVJULHIV
Settlement Board
GHVHPSOR\pVGHOD
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 7pO
Fax (416) 326-1396 7pOpF
GSB#2002-2095
UNION#2002-0999-0028
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 Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFOREFelicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNIONTim Mulhall
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYERGreg Gledhill
Ministry of Government Services
Centre for Employee Relations
Staff Relations Officer
HEARING
October 20, 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
WKH³ILUVWSKDVHRIWKH0LQLVWU\¶VWUDQVLWLRQ´2QHPHPRUDQGXPGDWHG0D\
3, 2000 (hereinafter referred to DV³0(5&´ 0LQLVWU\(PSOR\PHQW
Relations Committee)) outlined conditions for the correctional officers while
the second, dated July 19, 2001 (herHLQDIWHUUHIHUUHGWRDV³0(5&´
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]:KLOHLWZDVDJUHHGLQHDFKFDVHWKDWWKHVHWWOHPHQWVZHUH³ZLWKRXW
prejudice or precedent to positions either the union or the employer may take
on the same issues in future discuVVLRQV´WKHSDUWLHVUHFRJQL]HGWKDW
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
to be dealt with. It is because of the vast numbers of grievances that I have
- 4 -
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]Over a number of years the transition committee has faced various and
continuing organizational changes within this Ministry and has worked
tirelessly to attempt to reduce or at least significantly limit the impact on
members of the bargaining unit. Recently further jail closures have been
announced and the committee is making every effort to resolve disputes in a
timely fashion.
- 5 -
[10]Steven Jordan is a classified Correctional Officer at the Owen Sound Jail.
He filed a grievance that he was not advised regarding various vacancies that
existed at other institutions prior to making an election.
[11]Simply put, there is no entitlement for the grievor to receive a list of
vacancies as he suggested. Neither the Collective Agreement nor the MERC
agreement provides that individual employees shall be told of all vacancies.
The MERC agreement does provide thDW³WKH(PSOR\HUZLOOSURYLGHWKH
MERC Employee Transition Committee with a list of Correctional officer
and non-Correctional Officer vacancies with0&6&6¶,QVWLWXWLRQDO6HUYLFHV
'LYLVLRQ´7KH8QLRQGLGQRWDVVHUW that this clause was violated.
[12]Accordingly, the grievance is dismissed.
nd
Dated at Toronto this 2 day of November 2011.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair