HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-0872.Mackay.12-04-02 Decision
Crown Employees
rieva
nce Settlement
oard
1Z8
l. (416) 326-1388
x (416) 326-1396
t des griefs
es employés de la
t
Z8
l. : (416) 326-1388
léc. : (416) 326-1396
UNION#2011-0521-0017
IN THE MATTER OF
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
ETWEEN
G
B
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G
Te
Commission de
règlemen
d
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Oues
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1
Té
Té
Fa
GSB#2011-0872
AN ARBITRATION
Under
B
Ontario Public ployees Union
(Mackay) Union
- and -
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
Service Em
The Crown in Right of Ontario
BEFORE Felicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
ice Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Laura Josephson
O
G
ntario Public Serv
rievance Officer
s
s
Greg Gledhill
Ministry of Government Service
C
E
entre for Employee Relation
mployee Relations Advisor
HEARING March 12, 2012.
- 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 -
[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
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
- 4 -
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.
[10] Ms. Any MacKay is a finance and Administration Clerk with the Ministry.
She filed a grievance that alleged the Employer violated the Collective
- 5 -
Agreement by failing to convert her in accordance with Article 31.A.15.1.1.
By way of remedy she requests conversion to classified status.
[11] Ms. MacKay was hired as an OA3 on November 28, 2009. She worked in
that position for a while until she was promoted to a position of OA8. She
claims that as an OA8 she continues to do some of the work of an OA3 and
because she has been performing the OA3 duties for a period in excess of 18
months she should be converted into an OA3 position.
[12] The grievance is denied. The grievor’s home position is OA8. In order to
be converted the Collective Agreement states that the “same work” must be
performed for a period of 18 months. Presently, the grievor is performing
the work of an OA8. It is inappropriate to take into account any of the work
performed by the grievor as an OA3 for conversion purposes.
Dated at Toronto this 2nd day of April 2012.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair