HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-0229.Mills et al.06-01-25 Decision
Crown Employees Commission de Nj
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# 2002-0229 2002-0571 2002-0573 2002-0573 2002-0767
UNION# 2002-0234-0005 2002-0234-0006 2002-0234-0009 2002-0234-0004 2002-0234-0014
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Mills et al ) Union
- and -
The Crown In RIght of Ontano
(Mimstry ofCommumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer
BEFORE FelIcIty D Bnggs Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Scott Andrews
Gnevance Officer
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
FOR THE EMPLOYER Lucy Neal
Semor Staff RelatIOns Officer
Mimstry of Commumty Safety and
CorrectIOnal ServIces
HEARING November 14 December 1 2005
January 18 2006
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 The partIes contmued to negotIate
and agree upon further condItIons regardmg the transItIOn matters MERC 3 was
sIgned by the partIes on February 25, 2002
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 ImplementatIOn of the memoranda. Accordmgly, they agreed, at Part
G, paragraph 8
3
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 llnplementatIOn of tlllS agreement
It IS tlllS 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
decommISSIOnIng of mstItutIOns, It IS not surpnsmg that a number of gnevances
and dIsputes arose ThIS IS another of the dIsputes that have ansen under the
MERC Memorandum of Settlement
When I was mItIally mVIted to hear theses transItIOn dIsputes, the partIes agreed
that process to be followed for the determmatIOn of these matters would be
vIrtually IdentIcal to that found m ArtIcle 22 16.2 whIch states
The mediator/arbItrator shall endeavour to assIst the partIes to settle the
gnevance by mediatIOn If the partIes are unable to settle the gnevance by
medIatIOn, the mediator / arb 1 trator shall determme the gnevance by
arbItratIOn When detennmmg the gnevance by arbItratIOn, the
medIator/arbItrator may hmIt the nature and extent of the eVIdence and may
Impose such condItIons as he or she consIders appropnate The
medIator/arbItrator shall gIve a succmct decIsIOn wItllln five (5) days after
completmg proceedmgs, unless the partIes agree otherwIse
4
The transItIOn commIttee has dealt wIth dozens of gnevances and complamts pnor
to the mediatIOn/arbItratIOn process There have been many other gnevances 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 gnevances that I have decIded, m accordance
wIth my JunsdIctIOn to so detennme, that gnevances are to be presented by way of
each party presentmg a statement of the facts wIth accompanymg submIssIOns
NotwIthstandmg that some gnevors mIght wIsh to attend and provIde oral
eVIdence, to date, tlllS process has been efficIent and has allowed the partIes to
rem am relatIvely current wIth dIsputes that anse from the contmumg transItIOn
process
Not surpnsmgly, m a few mstances there has been some confusIOn about the
certam facts or sImply msufficIent detail has been provIded. On those occaSIOns I
have dIrected the partIes to speak agam wIth theIr prmcIples to ascertam the facts
or the ratIOnale belllnd the partIcular outstandmg matter In each case tlllS has been
done to my satIsfactIOn
It IS essentIal m tlllS process to aVOId accumulatmg a backlog of dIsputes The task
of resolvmg these Issues m a tImely fashIOn was, from the outset, a formIdable one
WIth ongomg changes m MmIstenal boundanes and other orgamzatIonal
alteratIOns, the task has lately become larger, not smaller It IS for these reasons
that the process I have outlmed IS appropnate m these CIrcumstances
Four classIfied CorrectIOnal Officers filed gnevances m January and February of
2002 that alleged they were "wrongfully dIsplaced" from Maplehurst CorrectIOnal
Complex m contraventIOn of ArtIcle 20 of the collectIve agreement
5
Each of the gnevors receIved a surplus notIce on January 18, 2002 On February
18, 2002 the gnevors each receIved assIgnment letters whIch confirmed a work
assIgnment wItllln forty kIlometres Three were assIgned to work at Toronto West
DetentIOn Centre and one was to go the Guelph Assessment and Treatment UnIt
On June 10,2002 the gnevors all receIved letters mstructmg them to report to theIr
new work locatIOn on June 24th, 2002
It was the gnevors' posItIOn that they were Improperly dIsplaced because the
Employer was not provIdmg the level of staffing at Maplehurst Complex Centre as
set out m the staffing complement
Dunng tlllS penod of tune the UnIon had filed a pohcy gnevance allegmg Improper
and unsafe staffing complements In response to thIS assertIOn the partIes
undertook a workload analysIs whIch took place over several months UltImately
the matter of staffing complement was resolved by a decIsIOn of tlllS Board, dated
September 27th, 2004 That decIsIOn dealt wIth only prospectIve staffing rehef and
had no retroactIve apphcatIOn At page 4 of that award It was Said.
The partIes were not sIgnIficantly dIsparate m theIr VIews of the appropnate
resolutIOn of tlllS matter I heard eVIdence regardmg the nature of the
operatIOn, how the operatIOnal needs have changed m the last five years, the
workload analysIs, the Employer's VIew of the appropnate staffing model
and the UnIon's concerns m that regard. It IS not my mtentIOn to revIew that
eVIdence m any detail It IS sufficIent to say that any decIsIOn rendered
herem IS pecuhar to these facts and wIll therefore have no apphcatIOn many
other mstItutIOn Further, tlllS decIsIOn sets out the appropnate staffing
complement for Maplehurst Complex as of the date of thIS decIsIOn as the
result of thIS process
6
F our of the gnevors m the present matter were redeployed to vanous mstItutIOns at
dIffenng tunes based on the operatIOnal reqUIrement of those facIlItIes One of the
gnevors reqUIred personal accommodatIOn that allowed hun to rem am at
Maplehurst Complex for a longer penod. He was eventually gIven notIce that hIS
accommodatIOn would come to an end, however pnor to actually movmg he
partIcIpated m a Job trade agreement whIch matched hun to a posItIOn at
Maplehurst Complex
It was the posItIOn of one of the gnevors that because eIght months elapsed
between hIS notIce and hIS actual move to a new mstItutIOn the staffing
complement had changed and therefore he ought to have been allowed to contmue
at Maplehurst There IS notlllng m the MERC agreements or the collectIve
agreement that would have me find that argument compelhng In the absence of a
retroactIve remedy flowmg from the pohcy gnevance, the Employer had,
accordmg to ArtIcle 2 1, the express management's nght to detennme the staffing
complement for the penod at Issue
Accordmgly, the gnevances are dIsmIssed
Dated m Toronto, thIS 25th day of January 2006
VIce-Chair