HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-0251.Douglas.06-07-17 Deci
Crown Employees Commission de t~1
Grievance Settlement reglement des griefs
Board des employes de la _iP_
Couronne
'lIIIIlaa"
SUite 600 Bureau 600 Ontario
180 Dundas St West 180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto,Ontano M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontano) M5G 1Z8
Tel (416) 326-1388 Tel (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396 Telec (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2003-0251,2004-2984,2004-2985,2005-2442, 2005-2443, 2005-2444, 2005-2445, 2005-2446,
2005-2447,2005-2448,2005-2449,2005-2450,2005-2451,2005-2452,2005-2453,2006-0016,
2006-0017,2006-0018,2006-0019,2006-0020,2006-0021,2006-0022,2006-0023,2006-0024,
2006-0025,2006-0026
UNION# 2003-0234-0086,2004-0234-0647, 2004-0234-0648, 2005-0234-0292, 2005-0234-0293,
2005-0234-0294,2005-0234-0295,2005-0234-0296,2005-0234-0297,2005-0234-0298,
2005-0234-0299,2005-0234-0300,2005-0234-0301,2005-0234-0302,2005-0234-0303,
2006-0234-0072,2006-0234-0073,2006-0234-0074,2006-0234-0075,2006-0234-0076,
2006-0234-0077,2006-0234-0078,2006-0234-0079,2006-0234-0080,2006-0234-0081,
2006-0234-0082
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEV ANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Douglas) 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 Lucy Neal
Senior Staff Relations Officer
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
HEARING June 19,2006.
2
~ecision
In September of 1996 the Ministry of Correctional Services notified the Union and
employees at a number of provincial correctional institutions that their facilities
woulc be closec anc/or restructurec over the next few years. On June 6, 2000 anc
June 29, 2000 the Union filec policyanc incivicual grievances that allegec 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,
catec May 3, 2000 (hereinafter referrec to as "MERC 1" (Ministry Employment
Re _ations Committee)) outlinec. conc itions for the correctiona _ officers while the
seconc., c.atec. Ju.y 19,2001 (hereinafter referrec. to as "MERC 2") provicec. for the
non-correctiona_ officer staff. Both agreements were subject to ratification by
respective principles anc- settlec al_ of the grievances ic.entifiec- in the relatec.
MERC appencices, fi_ec up to that point in time.
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
regarcing the implementation of the memoranca. Accorcingly, they agreec, at Part
G, paragraph 8:
The parties agree that they will request that Felicity Briggs, Vice Chair of the
Grievance Sett_ement Boarc. wil_ be seizec. with reso_ving any cisputes that arise
from the implementation of this agreement.
3
It is this agreement that provic-es me witl the juriscjction to resolve the outstancjng
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 anc size of the task of restructuring anc
cecommissioning 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 invitec to hear theses transition cjsputes, the parties agreec
that process to be foJowec for the cetermination of tlese matters wou_c be
virtuaJy ic-entical to that founc- in Artic_e 22.16.2 which states:
The mecjator/arbitrator shall enceavour 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 consicers appropriate. Tle mecjator/arbitrator shaJ give a succinct cecision
within five (5) days after completing proceedings, unless the parties agree
otherwise.
The transition committee has cealt with cozens of grievances anc- 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
4
eaCl party presenting a statement of the facts witl accompanying submissions.
Notwithstancjng 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 cetail has been provicec. 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 tlis process to avoic accumulating a backlog of cjsputes. The task
of reso_ving these issues in a timely faslion was, from the outset, a formicab_e one.
Witl ongoIng c langes In Ministeria _ bouncaries anc- other organizationa _
aterations, tle tas( has lately become _arger, not smal_er. It is for these reasons
that the process I have outlinec- is appropriate in these circumstances.
Mr. lain Douglas filed a grievance dated March 10, 2003 alleging that he was
"wrongfully surplused" and "forced to go to work at Guelph Correctional Centre".
On November 12, 2004 he filed two further grievances alleging that he has been
cjscriminatec against cue to his union activities anc that "the employer failec to
provice me with appropriate opportunities for transfer inclucjng a transfer to a
vacancy in the Bluewater facility, and/or a general transfer to the youth ministry."
5
Accorcjng to the c-ocumentation provicec- by the Emp_oyer, the grievor's final c-ay
of work was September 24, 2004 after having workec- a number of employment
extensions.
On October 5, 2005 Mr. Douglas filed twelve grievances. The allegations made in
those grievances included that he has been unjustly dismissed; he was treated
discriminatorily; and the Employer failed to establish "fair procedure" for the
prompt and equitable handling of grievances. On March 5, 2006, Mr. Douglas filed
a further eleven grievances that contemplated the same subject matters.
When these grievances were brought forward in this transition process I asked the
Union for the details surrounding these grievances. Very little, if any, information
was provicec by the Union. I requestec anc receivec an Employment Chronology
from tle Emp._oyer. As a resu.t oftle ._ac.( ofparticu_ars regarcing tlese grievances
I instructec the Union to contact the grievor to request the necessary information.
At our next cay of lea ring tlat information .lac- not been given to tle Union by Mr.
Douglas. I asked to see and was given documentation showing the Union's various
attempts to have the grievor provice the necessary cetails. While there was some
correspondence between the grievor and the Union, the salient facts were absent. A
number of attempts were made by the Union to ascertain the necessary evidence
without success.
Accordingly, virtually no evidence was provided in these matters and for that
reason these grievances must be cismissec. It is worthy of note that twenty-three
grievances were filec long after the grievor's employment hac encec.
The expedited transition process has now been long established and it has served
these parties and their principles well. Although the process is different than
6
tracitional arbitration, we have managec to acjucicate c-ozens, if notlunc-recs, of
grievances utilizing this procec-ure. In virtually every other instance, the grievor
has been forthcoming with his or her fact situation. The failure in this instance to
put the relevant facts before me despite sufficient time to do so leads me to dismiss
the grievances.
Dated in Toronto this 1 ih day of July, 2006.
7