The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011-2799.Johnstone.12-04-03 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#2011-0224-0013 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#2011-2799 AN ARBITRATION Under B Ontario Public (Johnstone) Union - and - (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer Service Employees Union The Crown in Right of Ontario BEFORE Felicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION ice Employees Union FOR THE EMPLOYER Tim Mulhall 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 January 9 and 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 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 - 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] Mr. Paul Johnstone is a classified Correctional Officer who worked at the Owen Sound Jail until its close on December 2, 2011. Prior to moving to his - 5 - new assignment at Hamilton Wentworth Detention Centre, he filed a grievance that alleged there was no balancing of hours with respect to his working schedule. [11] There was no dispute between the parties that as a general proposition there is a balancing of hours that is done for employees in this ministry who work a compressed work week. By agreement, the master rotation does not always provide for the Collective Agreement bi-weekly hours. However, Correctional Officers are paid as if they work the regular hours of work irrespective of the actual hours worked. It is part of this agreement that over a period of time, the total number of hours worked by a Correctional Officer will “balance out”. [12] In this case, the grievor alleges that there has been no such balancing. Indeed, had he continued at Owen Sound Jail he would have enjoyed seven days off just at the point where he actually reported to work at Hamilton. [13] I am unable to determine the merits of this matter because the grievance was filed prematurely. The Union was unable to show that the grievor did not have his hours balanced. It might be that this has not been done properly – as alleged by the grievor – but we do not yet know that. - 6 - [14] For this reason, the grievance is denied. Dated at Toronto this 3rd day of April 2012. Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair