HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-3688.Guylee.06-07-17 Decis
Commission de
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
règlement des griefs
Board
des employés de la
Couronne
Suite 600 Bureau 600
180 Dundas St. West 180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396 Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2003-3688, 2003-3689, 2003-3690, 2003-3691
UNION# 2003-0119-0015, 2003- 0119-0016, 2003-0119-0017, 2003-0119-0018
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLEC TIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SE TTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Guylee)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFORE Vice-Chair
Felicity D. Briggs
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
May 25, 2006.
2
Decision
In September of 1996 the Ministry of Co rrectional Services notified the Union and
employees at a number of provincial corr ectional 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 i ndividual grievances th at alleged various
breaches of the Collective Agreement includi ng 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 in to discussions and ultimately agreed upon
two Memoranda of Settlement concerni ng the application of the collective
agreement during the “first phase of the Ministry’s transition”. One memorandum,
dated May 3, 2000 (hereinaft er referred to as “MERC 1” (Ministry Employment
Relations Committee)) outlined conditions for the correctional officers while the
second, dated July 19, 2001 (hereinafter re ferred to as “MERC 2”) provided for the
non-correctional officer staff. Both agreem ents were subject to ratification by
respective principles and settled all of the grievances identif ied in the related
MERC appendices, filed up to that point in time.
While it was agreed in each case that th e settlements were “without prejudice or
precedent to positions either the union or the employer may take on the same
issues in future discussions”, the part ies recognized that disputes might arise
regarding the implementation of the memora nda. 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 pr ovides me with the jurisdicti on to resolve the outstanding
matters.
Both MERC 1 and MERC 2 are lengthy and comprehensive documents that
provide for the identification of vacanci es and positions and the procedure for
filling those positions as they become ava ilable 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 de termination 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 partie s are unable to settle the grievance by
mediation, the mediator/arbitrator shall determine the grievance by arbitration.
When determining the grievance by arbitra tion, 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/a rbitrator shall give a succinct decision
within five (5) days after completi ng proceedings, unless the parties agree
otherwise.
The transition committee has dealt with do zens of grievances and complaints prior
to the mediation/arbitration process. Th ere have been many other grievances and
issues raised before me that I have e ither assisted the parties to resolve or
arbitrated. However, there ar e still a large number that have yet to be dealt with. It
is because of the vast numbers of grieva nces that I have decided, in accordance
with my jurisdiction to so determine, that grievances are to be presented by way of
4
each party presenting a statement of th e 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 w ith their principles to ascertain the facts
or the rationale behind the particular outst anding matter. In each case this has been
done to my satisfaction.
It is essential in this pr ocess to avoid accumulating a b acklog of disputes. The task
of resolving these issues in a timely fashi on was, from the outset, a formidable one.
With ongoing changes in Ministeria l boundaries and other organizational
alterations, the task has late ly become larger, not smalle r. It is for these reasons
that the process I have outlined is appropriate in these circumstances.
On February 21, 2003, Mr. Steve Guylee, a Correctional Officer at the Stratford
Jail, entered into a Memorandum of Agre ement resolving a job posting grievance
with the Employer. The rele vant provisions stated:
The parties recognize that the vacan cy must be approved for posting,
and that any and all forthcoming ag reements at the MERC level, and
all provisions of the Collective Agre ement, e.g. Article 20, must first
be met and operationali zed before this agreement is triggered.
5
If clearance is received, Management agrees to post the next available
permanent General Duty Officer pos ition, with the area of search
restricted to classified and unclassi fied staff working at the Stratford
Jail.
On December 27, 2003 and October 6, 2003, Mr. Guylee filed a number of
grievances that alleged the Memorandum of Settlement was violated because there
were positions that became ava ilable that were not posted.
On behalf of the grievor, the Union pr ovided clear and extensive documentation
regarding the staffing situation at the St ratford Jail. While that documentation was
appreciated, it does not lead me to uphold the grievances. The documentation
provided by the Employer confirms that at the time of the filing of these grievances
all positions had been taken up by the MERC transition process. Therefore there
were no “available permanen t General Duty Officer” positions. Indeed, throughout
that period the Stratford Jail was operati ng in an overage positio n with respect to
Correctional Officers. Accordingly, “ no vacancies have been approved”.
In order for the grievor’s rights unde r the Memorandum of Agreement to be
triggered, there must be a vacancy and it must have been approved. It is not
triggered simply because some Correcti onal Officers leave positions at the Jail.
While I appreciate that this must have caused considerable frustration for the
grievor, there is no violation of the Memorandum of Agreement.
6
th
Dated in Toronto this 17 day of July 2006.
Felicity D. Briggs
Vice-Chair