HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-3148.Piotrowicz.12-10-18 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#2011-3148
UNION#2011-0521-0039
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Piotrowicz) 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 July 3, October 15, 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
- 3 -
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 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.
- 4 -
[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] Mike Piotrowicz is a fixed term Correctional Officer who worked at Mimico
Detention Centre. He filed a grievance alleging that the Employer violated 31A.17.1 of
the Collective Agreement.
[10] In accordance with an agreement between the parties, COs at MDC were given an
opportunity to transfer their fixed term contract or apply for a rollover at the Toronto Jail.
In June of 2011 the grievor elected as his second choice to have his fixed term contract
transferred to Vanier and this was implemented.
[11] He later learned that COs who had been rolled over at the Toronto Jail were
offered, along with others, lateral transfers to the Toronto Intermittent Centre.
[12] There was an Expression of Interest posted for rollover positions at TIC as the
result of another Memorandum of Agreement between the parties in November of 2011.
The grievor applied but had fewer hours than all who were given the positions.
[13] The grievor is of the view that if the entire rollover process was “more
transparent” he would have applied for the rollover positions for the Toronto Jail and then
laterally transferred to TIC.
[14] The transition process between these parties is a long standing and ever changing
matter. All contingencies cannot be foreseen with every possible scenario set out for all
involved. The grievor made a choice and in the end, he realized that as matters unfolded,
- 5 -
he should have chosen differently. That is unfortunate but it is not a violation of the
Collective Agreement or any other agreement between these parties.
[15] Accordingly the grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 18th day of October 2012.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair