The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011-2766.Murphy.12-07-11 DecisionCrown 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#2011-2766 UNION#2011-0224-0007 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Murphy) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer BEFORE Felicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair 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 Employee Relations Advisor HEARING DATE May 22, 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] 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 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 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. - 4 - [9] Mr. Joe Murphy is a Correctional Officer. At the time of the filing of his grievance he worked at the Owen Sound Jail. His grievance stated that the Collective Agreement has been violated because the “casuals were given a monetary allowance and I was not therefore, I was treated different – also the full time were paid to move to Penetang.” By way of redress he was to be treated “equally” and given the same allowance and moving expenses. [10] On June 22, 2011, the parties signed a Memorandum of Agreement regarding, amongst other things, conditions that will apply for Owen Sound Correctional Officers at the time of the closure of the facility. [11] That Memorandum said, starting at paragraph 1 on page 1: Due to the planned transfer of inmates from the Owen Sound Jail to the Central North Correctional Centre, the Employer agrees that all regular Correctional officers who own permanent positions at the Owen Sound Jail as of the date of the signing of this agreement, will be notified, in writing, of the Employer’s decision to change the operation’s headquarters to a location outside a 40 kilometer radius of the Owen Sound Jail. The Employer will offer available Correctional Officer positions at the Central North Correctional Centre to Correctional Officers who own positions at the Owen Sound Jail. This change in headquarters will be in accordance with Appendix 13 (relocation of operation beyond a 40 kilometre radius) and the Employer’s relocation policy. …. Employees who decline the change in headquarters location to the Central North Correctional Centre shall have rights and entitlements to other provisions of this Agreement and the applicable provisions of the Collective Agreement. [12] In accordance with the Memorandum classified Correctional Officers were also offered lateral transfers. Mr. Murphy elected to (and did in fact) transfer to Vanier. [13] The parties also set out in the Memorandum that “a laterally transferred employee will be governed by the provisions of the Collective Agreement which are applicable to their new position.” The Collective Agreement does not provide a moving allowance for those who elect to laterally transfer. - 5 - [14] While Mr. Murphy might think that he was treated differently, he was treated in the same fashion as other Classified Correctional Officers from the Owen Sound Jail who elected to laterally transfer. Further, he was treated in congruence with the Memorandum of Agreement. Accordingly, the grievance is dismissed. [15] Regarding the $2,000 allowance for casual employees, this matter was dealt with in an earlier decision (Re MCSCS-OPSEU-Johnstone – GSB#2011-2761) by this Board dated January, 6, 2012. For the reasons set out in that decision, this aspect of this grievance fails. Dated at Toronto this 11th day of July 2012. Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair