Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-1852.Quinn et al.03-10-30 Decision Crown Employees Commission de ~~ Grievance Settlement reglement des griefs Board des employes de la Couronne ~-,... Suite 600 Bureau 600 Ontario 180 Dundas Sl. West 180 rue Dundas Ouest Toronto Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Telec. (416) 326-1396 GSB# 2001-1852,2002-2452,2002-2753 2002-2815 UNION# 02C196 2003-0218-0023 2003-0218-0024 2003-0218-0025 2003-0218-0026 2003-0218-0020 2003-0218-0021 2003-0218-0022 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (QuInn et al) Grievor - and - The Crown In RIght of Ontano (Mimstry of PublIc Safety and Secunty) Employer BEFORE FelIcIty D Bnggs Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION Scott Andrews Gnevance Officer Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon FOR THE EMPLOYER Greg GledhIll Staff RelatIOns Officer Mimstry of PublIc Safety and Secunty HEARING September 5 2003 2 DECISION In September of 1996 the MmIstry of CorrectIOnal ServIces notIfied the Umon and employees at a number of provmcIaI correctIOnal mstItutIOns that theIr facIlItIes would be closed and/or restructured over the next few years On June 6, 2000 and June 29, 2000 the Umon filed pohcy and mdIvIdual gnevances that alleged vanous breaches of the collectIve agreement mcludmg artIcle 6 and artIcle 31 15 as well as gnevances relatmg to the filhng of correctIOnal officer posItIOns In response to these gnevances the partIes entered mto dIscussIOns and ultImately agreed upon two Memoranda of Settlement concernmg the apphcatIOn of the collectIve agreement dunng the "first phase of the MmIstry's transItIOn" One memorandum, dated May 3, 2000 (heremafter referred to as "MERC I" (MmIstry Employment RelatIOns CommIttee)) outhned condItIons for the correctIOnal officers wIllIe the second, dated July 19,2001 (heremafter referred to as "MERC 2") provIded for the non-correctIOnal officer staff Both agreements were subject to ratIficatIOn by respectIve prmcIples and settled all of the gnevances IdentIfied m the related MERC appendIces, filed up to that pomt m tIme WhIle It was agreed m each case that the settlements were "wIthout prejUdICe or precedent to posItIOns eIther the umon or the employer may take on the same Issues m future dIscussIOns", the partIes recogmzed that dIsputes mIght anse regardmg the nnplementatIOn of the memoranda. Accordmgly, they agreed, at Part G, paragraph 8 The partIes agree that they wIll request that FehcIty Bnggs, VIce Chair of the Gnevance Settlement Board wIll be seIzed wIth resolvmg any dIsputes that anse from the ImplementatIOn of thIS agreement 3 It IS thIS agreement that provIdes me wIth the JunsdIctIOn to resolve the outstandmg 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 filhng those posItIOns as they become aVailable throughout varIOUS phases of the restructunng GIven the complexIty and SIze of the task of restnlctunng and decommIssIOmng of mstItutIOns, It IS not surpnsmg that a number of gnevances and dIsputes arose ThIS IS another decIsIOn that consIders some of the dIsputes that have arIsen under the MERC Memoranda of Settlement Sundar to the process utIhzed for earher decIsIOns regardmg these transItIOn matters, the partIes attended at an arbItratIOn hearmg and provIded facts and submIssIOns concernmg the outstandmg Issues In large measure the facts were m agreement and It was not necessary to call eVIdence Gnevances were filed by A. Conners, P Muth, S Qumn & C Barnard, all of whom worked at Burtch CorrectIOnal Centre Each of these gnevances all anse from the same facts One gnevance alleged. I gneve the process by whIch the RFP was admmIstered m that Burtch CC staff who have retIred notIfied management and HR of theIr mtentIOn to bndge to retIrement or who have chosen the voluntary eXIt optIOn were not removed from the numbers of staff at Burtch CC reassIgned by bumpmg and later transfer pnor to the RFP bemg revIsIted wIth respect to lateral transfer request filed as of December 5, 2002 In accordance wIth the agreement of the partIes, there was a common surplus date If employees left pnor to the common surplus date any resultmg ArtIcle 20 posItIOns were filled on the basIs of semonty Some mdIvIduals left after they had 4 receIved theIr ArtIcle 20 entItlements on the common surplus date and those posItIOns were not filled. It IS these posItIOns that the gnevors lay claim to In my VIew, there IS nothmg m the agreement that would obhge the Employer to fill the ArtIcle 20 posItIOns that become vacant after the common surplus date Accordmgly, the gnevances are demed Dated; Toronto ~s 30th day of October 2003 . F ehcIty D Br ggs VIce-Chair