Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-1309.McArthur et al.06-05-31 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# 2002-1309 UNION# 2002-0234-0032 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (McArthur 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 Stephen GIles Gnevance Officer Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon FOR THE EMPLOYER Lucy Neal Semor Staff RelatIOns Officer Mimstry of Commumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces HEARING Apnl 20 2006 2 DeCISIon In September of 1996 the MInIstry of CorrectIOnal ServIces notIfied the Umon and employees at a number of provIncial correctIOnal InstItutIOns 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 polIcy and IndIVIdual gnevances that alleged vanous breaches of the CollectIve Agreement IncludIng ArtIcle 6 and ArtIcle 31 15 as well as gnevances relatIng to the fillIng of CorrectIOnal Officer posItIOns In response to these gnevances the partIes entered Into dIscussIOns and ultImately agreed upon two Memoranda of Settlement concernIng the applIcatIOn of the collectIve agreement dunng the "first phase of the MInIstry's transItIOn" One memorandum, dated May 3, 2000 (hereInafter referred to as "MERC 1" (MInIStry Employment RelatIOns CommIttee)) outlIned condItIons for the correctIOnal officers wlule the second, dated July 19,2001 (hereInafter referred to as "MERC 2") provIded for the non-correctIOnal officer staff Both agreements were subject to ratIficatIOn by respectIve prIncIples and settled all of the gnevances IdentIfied In the related MERC appendIces, filed up to that pOInt In tnne WhIle It was agreed In each case that the settlements were "wIthout prejUdICe or precedent to posItIOns eIther the umon or the employer may take on the same Issues In future dIscussIOns", the partIes recogmzed that dIsputes mIght anse regardIng the ImplementatIOn of the memoranda. AccordIngly, they agreed, at Part G, paragraph 8 The partIes agree that they wIll request that FelIcIty Bnggs, VIce Chair of the Gnevance Settlement Board wIll be seIzed wIth resolvIng any dIsputes that anse from the nnplementatIOn of tlus agreement 3 It IS thIS agreement that provIdes me wIth the JunsdIctIOn to resolve the outstandIng 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 restructunng GIven the complexIty and SIze of the task of restnlctunng and decommIssIOmng of InstItutIOns, It IS not surpnSIng 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 InItIally InvIted to hear theses transItIOn dIsputes, the partIes agreed that process to be followed for the determInatIOn 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 gnevance by mediatIOn If the partIes are unable to settle the gnevance by medIatIOn, the mediator/arbItrator shall determIne the gnevance by arbItratIOn When detennInIng the gnevance by arbItratIOn, the mediator/arbItrator may lImIt the nature and extent of the eVIdence and may Impose such condItIons as he or she consIders appropnate The mediator/arbItrator shall gIve a SUCCInct decIsIOn wIthIn five (5) days after completIng proceedIngs, unless the partIes agree otherwIse The transItIOn commIttee has dealt wIth dozens of gnevances and complaInts 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, In accordance wIth my JunsdIctIOn to so detennIne, that gnevances are to be presented by way of 4 each party presentIng a statement of the facts wIth accompanYIng submIssIOns NotwIthstandIng that some gnevors mIght wIsh to attend and provIde oral eVIdence, to date, tlus process has been efficIent and has allowed the partIes to remaIn relatIvely current wIth dIsputes that anse from the contInuIng transItIOn process Not surpnsIngly, 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 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 thIS process to aVOId accumulatIng a backlog of dIsputes The task of resolvIng these Issues In a tImely fashIOn was, from the outset, a formIdable one WIth ongoIng changes In MInI sten al boundanes and other orgamzatIonal alteratIOns, the task has lately become larger, not smaller It IS for these reasons that the process I have outlIned IS appropnate In these CIrcumstances A group gnevance In whIch Douglas McArthur was the leader was filed on behalf of a number of CorrectIOnal Officers and others They alleged that they should have receIved travel tIme and mIleage once they began theIr assIgnment at Maplehurst CorrectIOnal Complex Some of the gnevors worked at Waterloo CorrectIOnal Centre and others worked at Stratford JaIl Each was Informed In a letter dated July 6, 2001 that they had a common surplus date and each was offered certaIn temporary opportumtIes They agreed to accept those vanous temporary assIgnments and, accordIngly, they 5 receIved travel tIme and mIleage On December 18, 2001 they were Informed In a letter that they would be pennanently assIgned to work at Maplehurst CorrectIOnal Complex effectIve June 10, 2002 Ten days after beIng so assIgned they filed a gnevance because some of theIr co-workers workIng at Maplehurst CorrectIOnal Complex were reCeIVIng travel tnne and mIleage As stated In many prevIOUS decIsIOns, the determInIng factor as to whether travel tIme and mIleage are appropnate IS the type of assIgnment Those assIgned to work In an InstItutIOn on a temporary basIs are entItled to tlus compensatIOn wlule those on permanent assIgnment are not A reVIew of the gnevors' employment files IndIcates that all were pennanently assIgned to Maplehurst CorrectIOnal Complex on a permanent basIs WhIle thIS mIght have constItuted treatment by the Employer that was dIfferent from others, there IS notlung unfair about the gnevors had a pennanent posItIOn Indeed, there would be many CorrectIOnal Officers dunng tlus transItIOn process who would have been delIghted to have receIved such an assIgnment I don't know about the specIfics of why other officers were reCeIVIng travel tnne and mIleage However, It IS eVIdent that the gnevors were not so entItled. F or those reasons, the gnevance IS dIsmIssed ay,2006 VIce-Chair