HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-2061.Union Grievance.99-10-07 Decision
o NTARlO EMPUJYES DE LA COURONNE
CROW"! EMPLOYEES DE L 'ONTARlO
GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
-- SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 600 TORONTO ON M5G 128 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE, (416) 326-1388
180 RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 600 TORONTO (ON) M5G 128 FACSIMILE/TELECOPIE. (416) 326-1396
GSB # 2061/94 2131/97
OPSEU # 94U996 97UOO 1
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano Pubhc ServIce Employees Umon
(Umon Gnevance)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown III RIght ofOntano
(Mimstry of the SohcItor General & CorrecTIonal ServIces)
Employer
BEFORE FehcIty D Bnggs Vice ChaIr
FOR THE Mary Anne Kuntz
GRIEVOR Gnevance Officer
Ontano Pubhc ServIce Employees Umon
FOR THE Len Marvy
EMPLOYER Semor Counsel, Legal ServIces Branch
Management Board Secretanat
HEARING September 8 1999
On August 26 1998 the Mimstry of the SOhCItor General and CorrecTIonal ServIces and the
Dmon sIgned a Memorandum of Settlement and Release regarding the converSIOn of
unclassIfied employees, Tms agreement followed a lengthy and comphcated negOTIaTIon process,
It stated
The Employer and The Dmon hereto agree that the followmg conSTItutes full and final
settlement of the above noted Dmon Pohcy Gnevances and the attached gnevances
hsted m Appendix A
The partIes agree that the gnevors hsted m AppendIx A retam the nght to proceed to the
Gnevance Settlement Board for a determmatIOn as to whether or not the provIsIons as
set out m tills Memorandum of Settlement and the calculaTIon of hours have been
appropnately apphed to them,
The partIes agree that the gnevors hsted m Appendix A pOSITIOnS retaIn the nght to
proceed to the Gnevance Settlement Board for a determmatIOn as to whether or not the
2 calendar year penod as defined m the Memorandum of Settlement IS the appropnate
penod to be apphed to them for the purpose of determImng theIr ehgibihty for
assIgnment to a newly created classIfied pOSITIOn,
Article 31.15 - Unclassified Institutional Workers (Correctional Officers,
Nurses, Cooks), Correctional Services Division
Recogmzmg the difficulTIes m IdenTIfymg the specIfic employees backfillmg for specIfic
purposes, and acknowledgmg the extraordmary CIrcumstances currently m place
because of the decIsIons to hold vacanCIes to ease the Impact on mdivIduals of the
sIgmficant workforce reducTIons m the mstItuTIOnS, the partIes agree to the followmg to
correct the eXIstmg sItuaTIOn, but Without precedent or prejUdICe to future apphcatIOns of
thIS or subsequent provIsIOns of the CollecTIve Agreement respecTIng the converSIOn of
unclassIfied employees to classIfied status,
Acknowledgmg that the employer has undertaken a change m ItS own pohcy to
Immediately fill all eXISTIng ongomg mSTItuTIonal management vacanCIes as qwckly as
possible but not later than 6 months from the sIgnmg of tills agreement, the partIes agree
to the folloWing:
1 The employer agrees to calculate the total number of unclassIfied employees'
hours, by class, m each InstItuTIOn for the penod June 1 1996 to May 31 1998 The
total number of unclassIfied hours will Include pen ods of authonzed leave of unclassIfied
employees and total hours will Include any hours wmch generated premIUm pay
combIned WIth regular hours for unclassIfied employees provIded these hours do not
exceed 80 hours WIthIn a gIven pay penod,
2
2 The employer will also calculate the total number of hours for approved leaves
for classIfied employees by the same classes In each InSTItuTIon dunng the penod from
June 1 1996 to May 31 1998
3 The difference between the total number of unclassIfied hours and the total
number of approved leave hours for classIfied employees divIded by 1912 hours each
calendar year will determIne the number of new classIfied pOSITIOnS to be estabhshed In
each facihty If the result IS less than a whole number but greater than 85 the employer
will create a new pOSITIOn,
4 The partIes acknowledge that at thIS partIcular TIme, for the purpose of these
converSIOns, there IS an ongoIng need to estabhsh and fill the pOSITIOnS as IdenTIfied In
paragraph 3 and that the employer Will not refuse to create these posItIOns solely
because the on-gOIng need has not been estabhshed,
5 In future, the employer agrees to fill new ongOIng vacanCIes In accordance WIth
the provIsIons of the collect1ve agreement.
6 In recogmTIon of the fact that unclassIfied CorrecTIonal Officers who have
worked at least 1912 hours as a CorrecTIonal Officer will be reclassIfied from C01 to
C02 effecTIve the sIgmng of tills Memorandum of Settlement In accordance With the
pnncIples of ArtIcle 7 (pay AdmImstraTIon) of the Collect1ve Agreement.
NotwIthstanding that thIS Memorandum of Settlement IS Without prejudice or precedent,
the partIes agree that the above paragraph, can be rehed upon at the Gnevance
Settlement Board as beIng With prejudice for the purpose of determImng only those
prevIously filed gnevances pertaInIng to the dIfference between C01 and C02 pay
levels of unclassIfied Correct1onal Officers who have completed the reqwred traImng,
Process by which conversions of unclassified institutional workers (Correctional
Officers, Nurses, Cooks) in the Correctional Services Division will occur
A The pOSITIOnS estabhshed In paragraph 3 will be assIgned to unclassIfied
employees who meet the cntena set out In paragraph (B) by class, by facihty provIded
there are no surplus employees who qUalIfy for direct assIgnment.
B To be ehgible for converSIOn Into a classIficaTIon, unclassIfied InsTItuTIonal
workers must have completed a mImmum of 1912 hours, IncludIng authonzed leaves of
absence, In each of two conseCUTIve years In that classIficaTIon, Those two consecutIve
years must fall completely WItilln the penod April 1 1994 to May 31 1998
3
C Where the number of unclassIfied InsTItuTIonal workers who meet the cntena set
out In paragraph (B) In a facIhty IS greater than the number of classIfied pOSITIOnS to be
estabhshed, pOSITIOnS will be assIgned In accordance WIth the "pnncIple of semonty"
The formula for calculaTIng "semonty" will be the total number of full TIme weeks worked
up until May 31 1998 as an unclassIfied employee In the Ontano Pubhc ServIce back
to the first break In employment wmch IS greater than 13 weeks In accordance WIth the
pnncIples of ArtIcle 18 l(b)
D UnclassIfied InSTItutIOnal Workers, ranked and hsted according to total number
of full TIme weeks worked, Will be assIgned to pOSITIOnS at theIr facihty based on
descending order of "semonty" In accordance wIth (c) above,
E. IdenTIfied unclassIfied InsTItuTIonal Workers can elect In wnTIng WItilln three (3)
workIng days not to accept an offered classIfied posItIOn, In the event tills occurs the
classIfied pOSITIOn will be offered to the next mghest rankmg (in "semonty") unclassIfied
employee on the hst In the same classIficaTIon,
F All converSIOns and the resultant assIgnments to newly estabhshed classIfied
pOSITIOnS Will be effectIve September 30 1998
G If the number of classIfied posItIOns to be estabhshed exceeds the number of
ehgible unclassIfied employees In the same class, these addiTIonal pOSITIOnS will be
posted In accordance With ArtIcles 6 and 20 no later than November 15 1998 and
filled by December 31 1998
Article 31.15 - Process by which conversions for all other unclassified
employees, Correctional Services Division will occur.
1 The employer will IdenTIfy workmg 1732,75 or 1912 straIght TIme hours, as
apphcable, for each of two or more conseCUTIve years, takIng Into accent any approved
leaves, Unless the partIes otherWIse agree or another appropnate penod IS determIned
by an arbItrator pursuant to page 1 paragraph 3 the two year penod for each
employee will be from June 1 1996 to May 31 1998
2 The employer will IdenTIfy the reason for the unclassIfied contact - l.e, backfilhng
for approved leaves, backfillIng bemnd employees on temporary assIgnment and or
secondment, exceSSIve workload,
3 Where an employee has worked the reqUIred number of hours because of
exceSSIve workload or behInd an employee on secondment or temporary assIgnment or
secondment will conTInue, the employer will convert the employee In accordance WIth
ArtIcle 31 15 Such converSIOns will be completed by September 30 1998
4
4 Where specIfic unclassIfied employees have not worked the reqUIred number of
hours for the purposes of converSIOn, the hours worked In the pOSITIOnS will be totaled
With the other unclassIfied employees' hours In the same work sIte and same pOSITIOn
and dIvIded by the apphcable 1732,75 or 1912 straIght tIme hours to determIne the
number of classIfied full TIme pOSITIOnS to be estabhshed, These pOSITIOnS will be posted
by November 15th, 1998 and filled by December 31 1998 In accordance wIth artIcles
20 and 6 If the result IS less than a whole number but greater than 85 a new posItIOn
will be estabhshed, Hours worked backfilhng authonzed leaves of classIfied employees
will not be Included m tills calculaTIon,
The umon agrees to advIse the Gnevance Settlement Board that the pohcy gnevances
cIted above have been Withdrawn wItilln 30 days of the SIgnIng of tills agreement and to
further advIse the Gnevance Settlement Board that the gnevances IdenTIfied In AppendIx
A have been settled or wIthdrawn no later than October 31 1998
The TImetable and process for the ImplementaTIon of thIS settlement are set out In
Appendix B
The partIes agree that Ms, F Bnggs IS to remaIn seIzed With respect to the
InterpretaTIon and ImplementaTIon of tills Memorandum of Settlement, Including any
disputes anSIng out of tills Memorandum of Settlement from the IndivIdual gnevors hsted
In Appendix A
After the sIgmng of the above Memorandum, the partIes set about to Implement the
terms and provIsIons of theIr agreement. Not surpnsIngly gIven the compleXity of the
agreement, there were disputes anSIng from the ImplementatIOn, In accordance With the
Memorandum, the partIes have referred certaIn dIsputes to me for determInaTIon, In
preparatIOn for the heanng Into these matters, the partIes agreed to a statement of facts,
Those facts are as follows
Pursuant to the partIes' Memorandum of Settlement dated August 26 1998 concermng
the ConversIOn of UnclassIfied POSITIOnS, the partIes agree that the folloWIng conSTItutes
part of the submIssIon to Vice-ChaIr FehcIty Bnggs on September 8 1999
1 It IS agreed that Ms, Bnggs conTInues to remaIn seIzed of dIsputes ansIng from
the above-noted agreement.
2 It IS agreed that the attached hst of gnevances was IdenTIfied as Appendix A In
the Memorandum of Settlement. It IS also agreed the partIes shall update hst of
gnevances as AppendIx 1
5
3 It IS agreed that most of the Bsues gIVIng nse to these gnevances have been
resolved, accordingly the Umon wIthdraws all of the gnevances except for those
expressly IdenTIfied on that Appendix by the partIes as remaImng In dispute
4 It IS agreed that the partIes, In an effort to gIve the broadest possible
InterpretatIOn to Item B of the Memorandum of August 26 1998 Included the folloWing
types of authonzed leaves of absence In the calculatIOn of employees' ehgibihty for
converSIon,
- Pregnancy Leave (to a maXimum of 27 weeks Pregnancy (17), Parental
(10)*
- Parental Leave (to a maXimum of 12 weeks for male employees)*
- WCB absences *
- Penods of unpaId sIck leave
- CompassIOnate leaves
- Bereavement leaves
- Umon leave
- Canadian Forces leave
*EnTItlement was based on averagIng hours In the 13 weeks worked pnor to the
Injury or commencement of leave
5 The folloWing pen ods were not mcluded In the calculaTIon of ehgibihty,
- pen ods when the employee IndIcated he/she was "unavailable"
- penods of suspenSIOn for discIphnary reasons
- vacatIOn penods and statutory hohdays
- overtIme except to top a person up to 40 hours a week.
6 It IS agreed that eqwvalent hourly credit was gIven to everyone for all statutory
hohdays and two weeks' annual vacaTIon,
7 It IS agreed that credIt for the five 5 week penod of the OPS stnke In March
1996 was dealt With as follows hours In pnor 13 weeks (averaged) X 5 = hours
credIted for converSIOn purposes, Actual hours worked were removed or substItuted
With tills formula,
8 It IS agreed that no dIspute eXIsts between the Employer and the Umon
concernIng the calculaTIons completed by the Employer pursuant to Items 1 2, and 3 or
the Memorandum of August 16 1998
The partIes estabhshed a JOInt CommIttee to deal With ImplementaTIon Issues, The commIttee
had equal representatIOn and operated on the basIs on consensus, ThIS veillcle allowed the
partIes to resolve a great many of the disputes that arose after the sIgmng of the Memorandum,
6
It IS not my IntenTIon to set out, In detail, the submIssIons of the partIes' on each of the Issues In
dispute It IS sufficIent to say that I was provIded With a complete artIculatIOn of the pOSITIOn of
each party and the argument to substantIate that VIew I very much apprecIated the clanty
provIded by the partIes regarding each of the Issues,
It was apparent from the August 26 1998 Memorandum of Settlement and the resultIng
ImplementatIOn process that the partIes made every effort to resolve the outstandIng matters
relaTIng to the converSIOn of unclassIfied staff They were, In large measure successful and It IS
not surpnsIng that a handful of Issues needed the attentIOn of thIS Board, I will set out the
outstanding Issues In for form of a quesTIon and provIde the determInaTIon for each,
To what extent, if any, are the parties required to revisit or reconsider further
information once a decision from the Joint UnionlManagement Implementation
Committee has been issued to grievors?
Tills matter has ansen subsequent to vanous CIrcumstances, Some gnevors have sImply asked
the commIttee to reconsIder a decIsIon Without provIding any new InformaTIon or any reason for
the request for reconsIderaTIon, Others have raIsed new Issues or provIded facts not prevIOusly
raIsed folloWIng the commIttee's decIsIon and have asked for a reconsIderaTIon on the basIs of
that new InformaTIon, It was clear from the partIes' submIssIons that the JOInt CommIttee was
frequently asked to reVIew matenal and, to ItS credIt, It frequently did re-consIder the partIcular
sItuaTIOn of vanous gnevors based on new matenal provIded, Gnevors were Informed of the
CommIttee's decIsIon by a JOIntly wntten letter
The process estabhshed by the partIes provIded that complaInants were notIfied of a deadhne
for further InformaTIon and submIssIons to be gIven to the JOInt CommIttee, Indeed, a second
nOTIce was gIven to ensure that every opportumty was gIven to employees, The commIttee was
reluctant to estabhsh a deadhne because It wanted to avoId mISSIng the opportumty of
consIdenng all relevant InformaTIon and It was probably for tills reason that It chose to re-
7
consIder some matters, However reVIews caused occasIOnal delays In convertIng certaIn
pOSITIOnS, Such delays were In the Interest of no one The converSIOn of posItIOns bnngs With It
many adjustments for the people who are beIng converted that should be done as qwckly as IS
pracTIcable
In my VIew the JOInt CommIttee IS not reqUIred to conTInue to reVIew and reconsIder Issues
already addressed and determIned, It has met ItS mandate To be clear any dIspute or
gnevance filed pnor to August 26 1998 where the commIttee has rendered ItS decIsIOn, the
matter has finally decIded, There IS no need for the JOInt CommIttee to reconsIder those
gnevances further While I am seIzed of ImplementaTIon dIsputes as set out In the final paragraph
of the Memorandum of Settlement, I am not seIzed With gnevances filed subsequent to August
26 1998
What is the meaning of "by facility" found at paragraphs A, B, C, D and Appendix B
of the Memorandum of Settlement dated August 26, 1998?
Some gnevors have taken the pOSITIOn they have access to converted pOSITIOnS created In
InSTItuTIons other than the one In whIch they were employed as at May 31 1998 I dIsagree In
my VIew the Memorandum contemplates Integnty of the worksIte In terms of pOSITIOnS to be
converted,
One example provIded was In the Sudbury regIOn, I understand that no unclassIfied employee
was ehgible for converSIOn at Cecil Faser notWIthstanding the fact that five new pOSITIOnS were
created, Across town at the Sudbury Jail, there were more ehgible unclassIfied employees than
there were newly created pOSITIOnS, Some gnevors at the Sudbury JaIl took the posItIOn that
they were enTItled to the pOSITIOnS at Cecil Faser SImply put, there IS notillng In the
Memorandum of Settlement between the partIes to substantIate such a claIm, Willie I can
understand that some gnevors at the Sudbury Jail mIght have found tills sItuaTIOn frustraTIng, the
are not enTItled to pOSITIOnS at another InSTItuTIon,
8
UnclassIfied employees receIved credIt for hours worked at other InSTItuTIons, However they
were only enTItled to be converted Into pOSITIOnS WIthIn the facihty where they were located on
May 31 1998
Some unclassified staff claim entitlement to conversion based on meeting the
eligibility criteria after May 31,1998. Are they entitled to conversion?
Whenever there IS a deadhne or cutoff pOInt estabhshed In a Memorandum of Settlement such
as IS before me, It IS always gOIng to occur that some people will meet the deadhne but a small
margIn and some will mISS the date by a matter of days, There was discussIOn at the heanng
about the dISappOIntment of those employees who were close to meetIng the ehgibihty cntena
but were beyond the date of May 31 1998 It IS not dIfficult to understand the frustraTIon of
such a sItuatIOn, The Gnevance Settlement Board has been faced With tills Issue In the past. I
chaIred a number of gnevances that arose from a Memorandum of Settlement regarding
converSIOn between the Mimstry of Natural Resources and the Umon, In Re Trybus et ai, I
consIdered the Importance of respect1ng a cutoff date and my VIew has changed In tills Instance,
Those gnevances were demed,
The partIes agreed upon a certaIn date for a cut off pOInt and that date must be respected, If the
partIes moved the cutoff pOInt by a week or two, there would still be employees who just faIled
to meet the cntena, Notillng IS resolved by mOVIng the date Further alloWIng excepTIons just
causes sIgnIficant frustraTIon to the process, In sItuatIOns such tills It IS ImperaTIve for the partIes
to amve at a date both beheves to be reasonable and to have a consIstent apphcatIOn of the
Memorandum and not make excepTIons, I am sure that there were occaSIOns when the partIes
were tempted to be flexible With the cut off date gIven some of the partIcular fact sItuaTIOnS
before them, However In my VIew the partIes were nght to maIntaIn the Integnty of the date
Without excepTIon, To waver and allow certaIn excepTIons would only lead to further
frustraTIons, IrrespecTIve of whether gnevors mIssed the ehgibihty date of May 31 1998 by
9
days or weeks or years, such failure IS, In and of ItSelf, determInaTIve of the matter Tills Board
will allow no excepTIons,
Are grievors who failed to meet the eligibility date of May 31, 1998, entitled to the
excess converted positions resulting from circumstances where there were more
positions to be converted than employees entitled to be rolled over?
No As menTIoned above, employees who failed to meet the converSIOn cntena as of May 31
1998 are not enTItled to be converted under the Memorandum of Settlement under any
CIrcumstances,
To what extent, if any, should a vacancy that was created after May 31,1998 be treated
as an ongoing entitlement to conversion?
I understand that there are some gnevors who have alleged that the Memorandum of Settlement
should contInue to apply SpecIfically It was suggested that postIngs arISIng after May 31 1998
should be converted or offered only for unclassIfied employees, AgaIn, I disagree, The
Memorandum estabhshed a tIme frame for converSIOn of pOSITIOnS and unclassIfied employees,
Once past that obhgaTIon, the collecTIve agreement apphes, Accordingly pOSITIOnS created after
May 31 1998 are to be posted and filled In accordance With the terms and provIsIOns of the
collect1ve agreement.
What is the criteria for conversion of positions after May 31, 1998?
Cntena for converSIOns after May 31 1998 are provIded at ArtIcle 31 15 1 1 of the collectIve
agreement.
Some institutions had more eligible unclassified staff than new positions. Does the
Memorandum of Agreement contain a guarantee to a position for every eligible
person, either implicitly or expressly?
10
I understand that there were no dIsputes between the partIes concernIng the number of posItIOns
to be created resulTIng from the Memorandum of Agreement. Indeed, It was agreed that the
Employer properly apphed the formula for determImng the number of pOSITIOnS to be created,
I can find notillng m the Memorandum of Agreement that would lead me to find that the
Employer was obhged to create a pOSITIOn for every employee who met the ehgibihty cntena,
Indeed, If that were the case, there would have been no need for an agreement regardIng how
to determIne the number of new classIfied pOSITIOnS to be estabhshed at each facihty as IS found
on page two at paragraph three of the Memorandum of Agreement.
At one institution some grievors claim that they have been unfairly disadvantaged
because unclassified hours were unusually low due to riots in February of 1996 and
December of 1997 Unclassified staff were laid off or lost hours as result of the riots.
Is it prejudicial to these employees to use the same time period (June 1, 1996 to May
31, 1998) for the calculation of positions to be converted or for the calculation of
individual eligibility for conversion?
While I understand some IndivIduals at tills InSTItuTIon mIght feel disadvantaged by certaIn
condiTIons dunng the ehgibihty penod, the partIes had to estabhsh a penod of TIme that was most
appropnate for the majonty of the employees In the Mimstry It IS not surpnSIng that not all
IndivIduals or all InSTItuTIons approve equally of the date, All will be affected differently and
occasIOnally for operaTIonal reasons some mIght feel prejudiced, However there IS notillng
about the TIme frame that IS Inappropnate or prejudicIal, In my VIew
By desIgn, unclassIfied employees are scheduled to work as they are needed, The staffing needs
of an InSTItuTIon will alter depending on operaTIonal reqwrements, Some jails had umts closed
dunng the ehgibihty penod, The jail at Issue had a layoff due to nOTIng, It IS possible that some
InSTItuTIons had hIgh needs dunng that same penod, Circumstances will vary around the
ProVInce, That anyone mSTItuTIon had fewer unclassIfied hours dunng the ehgibihty penod than It
did dunng an earher or later penod does not constItute prejUdICe, Further there IS notillng In the
11
Memorandum of Agreement that would allow for any alteraTIon of Its terms depending on
vanous CIrcumstances,
Two pregnant correctional officers required accommodation. The only accommodation
available was one position that was job-shared by the two women. One now claims
that she would have met the number of hours needs for conversion but for the reduced
hours. Was she discriminated against?
According to the partIes' submIssIons, the gnevor made no claIm of discnmInatIOn at the TIme of
the accommodaTIon, In my VIew In order to make a finding of discnmInaTIon regarding her
failure to be converted, the gnevor would have had to object to the accommodatIOn at the TIme
It would not be appropnate to allow a retroaCTIve claIm of discnmInaTIon for reasons that could
not have been foreseen at the TIme of the accommodaTIon, The actual accommodatIOn brought
no allegaTIon of discnmInaTIon and I therefore will make no such finding at tills TIme,
Should an approved leave of absence to get married be included in the calculation of
eligibility for conversion?
As an unclassIfied employee the gnevor receIved no vacaTIon enTItlement under the collect1ve
agreement. He took an approved leave of absence to get mamed because of hIS lack of paId
vacaTIon, It IS ills allegaTIon that the lack of vacaTIon enTItlement cannot now be held agaInst illm
for the purposes of calculaTIng ehgibIhty for converSIOn, I tillnk not. The partIes agreed to a
formula for converSIOn that Included gIVIng credIt across the board for vacaTIon days and
statutory hohdays, The gnevor like others, got the benefit of that and IS not enTItled to more
Should hours worked in any classification during the eligibility period count for
conversion to a particular position?
An example was gIven of an employee who had a number of hours worked as a RecreatIOnal
Officer He alleged those hours worked as a RecreaTIonal Officer should be counted In
determImng ills ehgibihty to convert Into the posItIOn of CorrecTIonal Officer I cannot agree,
12
According to the Memorandum of Settlement, ehgibihty for converSIOn Into a classIficaTIon IS
based on hours worked In that classIficatIOn and not, as alleged, hours worked In any posItIOn
for the Mimstry
Can a grievor now claim that failure to post "secondments" during the eligibility
period prejudiced his opportunity to achieve sufficient hours to be allowed to convert?
No It IS my understandIng that there were no gnevances filed at the tIme that the above referred
to secondments were not posted, I also understand that the secondments that the gnevor rehed
upon were for temporary pOSITIOnS, The allocatIOn of temporary assIgnments IS WithIn the
purvIew of the Employer There IS no provIsIon In the collect1ve agreement that obhges the
Employer to post temporary assIgnments, Accordingly the matter IS not an arbItrable,
Was the failure to include overtime worked in the conversion criteria prejudicial to
employees who lost hours due to riots in the worksite?
It was the pOSITIOn of the gnevors In tills matter that every hour of overtIme should have been
counted In the calculaTIon agreed to by the partIes, The formula for overtIme was different from
that. As menTIoned earher the partIes agreed on VarIOUS terms and provIsIons that were the
most beneficIal to the majonty of employees, It follows that some employees mIght receIve less
benefit than others, Tills IS the result of compromIse and It goes WIthOUt saYIng that the Umon
acted In what It thought was the best Interest of ItS members generally
There IS no doubt that the Memorandum of Settlement provIdes an overall greater benefit to
unclassIfied employees In the Mimstry of Correct1onal ServIces than those found In the collect1ve
agreement. The partIes are to be commended on amvIng at a solutIOn that takes Into account
not only the general pnncIples set out In the collect1ve agreement but also the long-standIng
concerns of employees In the workplace
13
I conTInue to remaIn seIzed of matters In accordance WIth the Memorandum of Agreement of
August 26 1998
Dated In Toronto, thIS 7th day of October 1999
~
. . . I I. ;~~ I"
_, ' 1:1
'f:- ; ; .~- _ -
_ r __ I
. ~ .
FehcIty D Bnggs
14