Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-2301.Edelhofer.11-11-03 DecisionCommission de Crown Employees Grievance UqJOHPHQWGHV Settlement Board griefs GHVHPSOR\pVGHOD Couronne Suite 600 180 Dundas St. West Bureau 600 Toronto, Ontario M5G 180, rue Dundas Ouest 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G Tel. (416) 326-1388 1Z8 Fax (416) 326-1396 7pO   7pOpF   GSB#2011-2301 UNION#2011-0521-0031 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Edelhofer) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer Vice-Chair BEFOREFelicity D. Briggs FOR THE UNION Tim Mulhall Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer FOR THE EMPLOYER Greg Gledhill Ministry of Government Services Centre for Employee Relations Staff Relations Officer HEARINGOctober 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 GXULQJWKH³ILUVWSKDVHRIWKH0LQLVWU\¶VWUDQVLWLRQ´2QH memorandum, dated May 3, 2000 (herHLQDIWHUUHIHUUHGWRDV³0(5& ´ 0LQLVWU\(PSOR\PHQW5HODWLRQV Committee)) outlined conditions for the correctional officers while the second, dated July 19, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ³0(5&´ SURYLGHGIRUWKHQRQ 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 IXWXUHGLVFXVVLRQV´WKHSDUWLHV 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 - 3 - 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. [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 - 4 - 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]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 - 5 - 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. [10]Michael Edelhofer is a classified MM2 at Mimico Correctional Centre. He filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by assigning work to his classification that properly belongs to the classification of MM3. [11]By way of remedy he asked for full redress including being re- classified as an MM3. [12]The Employer argued that this grievance must be summarily dismissed because the Board is without jurisdiction to deal with classification grievances. [13]I must agree and accordingly the grievance is denied.