HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-1701.Marcuccio et al.13-04-12 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#2012-1701, 2012-1702
UNION#2012-0547-0008, 2012-0547-0009
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Marcuccio et al) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Children and Youth Services) Employer
BEFORE Felicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Tim Mulhall
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Karen Martin & Pauline Barr
Ministry of Government Services
Centre for Employee Relations
Employee Relations Advisor
HEARING April 2, 2013.
-2 -
Decision
[1] Since the spring of 2000 the parties have been meeting regularly to address
matters of mutual interest which have arisen as the result of the Ministry of Community
Safety and Correctional Services as well as the Ministry of Children and Youth Services
restructuring initiatives around the Province. Through the MERC (Ministry Employment
Relations Committee) a subcommittee was established to deal with issues arising from
the transition process. The parties have negotiated a series of MERC agreements setting
out the process for how organizational changes will unfold for Correctional and Youth
Services staff and for non Correctional and non Youth Services staff.
[2] The parties agreed that this Board would remain seized of all issues that arise
through this process and it is this agreement that provides me the jurisdiction to resolve
the outstanding matters.
[3] Over the years as some institutions and/or youth centres decommissioned or
reduced in size others were built or expanded. The parties have made efforts to identify
vacancies and positions and the procedures for the filling of those positions as they
become available.
[4] The parties have also negotiated a number of agreements that provide for the
“roll-over” of fixed term staff to regular (classified) employee status.
[5] Hundreds of grievances have been filed as the result of the many changes that
have taken place at provincial institutions. The transition subcommittee has, with the
assistance of this Board, mediated numerous disputes. Others have come before this
Board for disposition.
[6] It was determined by this Board at the outset that the process for this disputes
would be somewhat more expedient. To that end, grievances are presented by way of
statements of fact and succinct submissions. On occasion clarification has been sought
from grievors and institutional managers at the request of the Board. This process has
-3 -
served the parties well. The decisions are without prejudice but attempt to provide
guidance for future disputes.
[7] The nine grievors worked at Thistletown Residential Centre and allege that they
should have been given notice payments in accordance with the Employment Standards
Act. By way of remedy they seek those monies. Each worked in the STEP program and
when that program ended, their work and therefore their employment ended.
[8] According to the Employer, the STEP program closed on July 20, 2012. However,
it was hoped that the grievors could do other work that was available and therefore, all
were offered work that had been previously done by fixed term employees in the TREAD
program. They were also offered the training necessary to enable them to do the work.
Each declined and given their refusal to perform no further compensation or entitlement
is owing.
[9] According to the particulars provided, the grievors declined the work because it
was quite different from their previous assignment. Further, work in the TREAD program
was unfamiliar and could be unpredictable and sometimes involved working with violent
client groups. Normally, staff did not cross-over from one program to another and
therefore it was understandable that they declined the work.
[10] I am of the view that the grievances must fail. There was no dispute between the
parties that there was work for the grievors to perform. While I appreciate that the work
was different, training was offered and the grievors cannot just elect to leave while the
Employer has work to be done and demand pay in lieu of notice.
[11] The grievances are dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 12th day of April 2013.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice Chair