The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-3774.Union Grievance.04-12-20 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# 2003-3774 UNION# 2004-0999-0002 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Union Grievance) 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 Stephen Giles Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union FOR THE EMPLOYER Greg Gledhill Staff Relations Officer Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services HEARING September 9, October 13 & November 8, 2004. 2 Decision From March 13th to May 6th 2002, the Union and its members were engaged in a legal strike. Prior to the beginning of this action the parties had negotiated a Memorandum of Agreement regarding the conditions of work in the event of a strike or a lockout (hereinafter referred to as the “Conditions Document”). In that agreement it was provided that “all collective agreement provisions apply to essential and emergency workers without interruption, save only that Appendix 9 and Appendix 18 shall not apply”. The Conditions Document also expressly provided the Union continued right under Article 22.13 of the Collective Agreement to file Union grievances on behalf of employees who were performing essential and emergency services. During the course of the strike approximately 5000 grievances were filed by Union members across the Ontario Public Service. As part of the negotiations that ended the work stoppage, the parties negotiated a Return to Work Protocol. That agreement contemplated various provisions including how continuous service, pension, credits and seniority would be affected as a result of the strike. Additionally, the parties addressed other issues such as reprisal, discipline and the mechanics of the actual return of the bargaining unit members to the workplace. It was further agreed these “strike related” grievances would be treated separately and litigated in an efficient manner. To that end, on June 27, 2002, OPSEU and the Ministry of Public Safety and Security (hereinafter referred to as “MPSS”) met to discuss a process in order to resolve the outstanding strike related grievances. Following that meeting a letter, dated October 11, 2002, confirmed the agreement that: 3 In order to deal with the strike related grievances in a proactive, expeditious and effective manner, the parties have agreed to the following: • No stage 2 hearings • No filing of strike related grievances at GSB, until agreed otherwise • Waiving of time limits • Respectively assigning dedicated resources to deal with the volume Approximately 4500 grievances were filed by members employed by the MPSS. The parties agreed to a Dispute Resolution Protocol for MPSS that included Terms of Reference. It is not necessary to provide all of that agreement. It is sufficient to say that the parties agreed to an expedited process wherein each party provides to the Vice Chair written submissions which include the facts, provisions of the Collective Agreement, the Essential Services Agreement, legislation or any other document alleged to have been violated, arguments and requested remedy. Oral evidence would not be called although it was allowed that I could request further clarification if necessary. In the event of any confusion regarding the facts of the matter or the underlying rationale, I will direct the parties to speak again with their principles. Notwithstanding that some grievors might wish to attend and provide oral evidence, this process has been efficient and has allowed for a thorough canvassing of the facts and arguments with respect to the various issues. Other procedural issues were addressed to ensure that grievances would be dealt with in a timely fashion. The Terms of Reference also provided that I would remain seized of all outstanding strike related grievances filed by members working in MPSS. This process was developed in consideration of Article 22.16.2 of the collective agreement. It 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 4 mediator/arbitrator shall give a succinct decision within five (5) days after completing proceedings, unless the parties agree otherwise. The majority of the 4500 grievances dealt with one of the following issues: • An allegation of delayed retroactive payments with a request for interest owing; • An allegation of failure to pay appropriate holiday pay for Good Friday and Easter Monday; • Entitlement to call back; • On-Call and Standby issues for emergency workers. Those matters were separately litigated at the Grievance Settlement Board and decisions either have been issued or are pending. In accordance with the agreement of the parties a number of hearing days were scheduled to hear and determine the outstanding strike related grievances. Many of the grievances have been resolved through mediation. During the course of the hearings into these matters it became apparent that reasoned decisions were no longer necessary. The major issues between the parties had been canvassed, litigated and decided in various awards and settlements. It was also clear that time constraints were such that the outstanding issues had to be determined in a more expeditious fashion and therefore the parties agreed that the remaining matters would be decided without reasons. It should be noted that in setting out my ruling below I have, in some instances, provided a remedy that is less that what was being requested by the grievor. However, the remedy I have ordered, if any, reflects the appropriate result in each circumstance. Accordingly, following is a list of the grievances that were argued before me accompanied only with my ruling: 5 REFERENCE # NAME DISPOSITION DH25 Darlaw dismissed ES52 Brittain upheld – 10 days owing ES64 Squires dismissed MS38 Ledger upheld – 4 weeks owing PA58 Schoenmakers dismissed PA21 Hunter upheld – 4 hours owing PA153M Mason upheld – 4 hours owing PA153M Miller upheld – 4 hours owing ES100 Tyler upheld – 8 hours owing PA408 Kennedy upheld – 4 days owing + & RW59 3 days sick leave PA250M Group dismissed ES51 Brady upheld – 10 days owing MS10 Harvey dismissed DH74 Galla dismissed DH29 Hugo dismissed ES107 Busat dismissed PA344 Walker dismissed PA276 Pungitore dismissed PA277 Suhota dismissed PA282 Knaap & Krusto & PA33 upheld 5 days owing PA31 Kieffer upheld - 4 days owing ES28 & 29 Wilson upheld – 10 days owing MS07 Wint-Inglis dismissed DH04 Laderoute dismissed 6 ES97 Rivet dismissed ES23 Majee dismissed DH22 Hope dismissed DH19 Matwichuk dismissed DH20 Punja dismissed PA24 Johnston upheld – 23 hours owing DH48 & MS01 Digianni upheld – 9 hours owing DH01 Sidler dismissed DH37 Panico dismissed PA205M Group dismissed PA76M Group dismissed ES72 & 73 Duncan dismissed ES80 Joncas dismissed ES81 Grimes dismissed RW83 Walters dismissed PA114 Duncan dismissed DH07 Carol dismissed PA116 Casement A balancing of hours issue RW109 Young dismissed DH17 Berry upheld – 4 weeks owing ES74 Duncan upheld – 8 hours owing ES48 & DH49 Kerr upheld – 20 days owing RW100 Peckford dismissed ES68 Cockburn dismissed RW84M Group dismissed MS05 Risdale dismissed PA92 Lindsay dismissed DH54 Campbell dismissed 7 PA57 Rosati upheld – 7 hours owing PA13 Forsyth upheld – 8 hours owing PA254 Cook dismissed PA414 Kennedy dismissed PA182 Merry upheld - $20 owing DH73 Richards upheld – Employer to remove comments on WIN RW83 Walters dismissed PA266 St. Yves upheld – 8 hours owing PA422 Renaud dismissed PA424 Anderson dismissed PA425 Woolnough dismissed PA427 Cordick dismissed PA133 Mowe dismissed PA206 & DH64 Bennett upheld – 1 day owing PA207 Large upheld – 2 days owing PA210 Nutson upheld – 1 day owing Julie White upheld – 30 hours owing ES78 Hauth dismissed PA62 & 63 Simpson upheld - 8 hours owing PA80 Allan upheld – 16 hours owing PA70 & 71 Tyrell upheld – 11.5 hours owing PA 47 McIvor upheld – 24 hours owing PA07 & 88 Duval upheld – 8 hours owing PA91 Hoover upheld – 8 hours owing PA87 Drummond dismissed PA85 Coker upheld – 8 hours owing PA263 Haggett upheld – 8 hours owing 8 PA68 Stephenson upheld – 8 hours owing PA55 Pekeski upheld – 16 hours owing PA53 Patrick upheld – 24 hours owing PA64 Sinclair upheld – 8 hours owing PA72 Valleau upheld – 8 hours owing PA73 Vanderyt upheld – 16 hours owing PA78 Curran dismissed PA79 Fisher upheld - 5.5 hours owing PA90 Hagan upheld – 8 hours owing ES20 Stoner upheld – 8 hours owing Eileen Smerdon upheld – 4 hours owing DH61 & 62 Nabert dismissed DH33 MacDonald dismissed PA50 Mullings dismissed RW94 Hope upheld 33 hours owing DH13 Janitens dismissed DH14 MacDonald dismissed DH15 McCann dismissed MS08 Lowe dismissed RW155 Grimmond dismissed PA162 McGuigan dismissed PA08 Endrizzi dismissed PA10 Faieta dismissed ES55M Mitchel dismissed Gagnon dismissed DH35 Miller dismissed 9 This disposes of most of the outstanding matters. I would be remiss if I did not thank the parties for their considerable efforts in finalizing this task. At the outset it seemed difficult to imagine how we would dispose of hundreds of individual disputes during the life of this collective agreement. However, much time and organization was taken to achieve these results. I am grateful for this assistance. Dated in Toronto this 20th day of December, 2004. Felicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair