HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-0143.Johnston.07-01-22 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# 2004-0143
UNION# 2004-0440-0004
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Johnston) 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 October 26, 2006.
2
Decision
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. The parties continued to negotiate
and agree upon further conditions regarding the transition matters. MERC 3 was
signed by the parties on February 25, 2002.
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:
3
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.
It is this agreement that provides me with the jurisdiction to resolve the outstanding
matters.
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.
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.
4
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.
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.
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.
Beverly Johnston grieved that she should have remained on temporary assignment
until Rideau Correctional Centre was decommissioned or until the “owner of the
switchboard position had completed her leave of absence.” She requested “full
redress”.
5
Ms. Johnston was an OAG 6 at Rideau Correctional Centre. During the transition
process she had indicated that she wanted to work at St. Lawrence Valley. She was
then offered and accepted a conditional offer to work as an OAG 4. While I can
appreciate that the situation has been frustrating for the grievor, there has been no
violation of the collective agreement or any of the MERC agreements.
The grievance is therefore denied.
Dated in Toronto this 22nd day of January 2007.
Felicity D. Briggs
Vice-Chair