The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2002-1725.Holden.06-06-01 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# 2002-1725 UNION# 2002-0263-0031 2002-0263-0032 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (Holden) 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 Apnl42006 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 pohcy 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 filhng of CorrectIOnal Officer posItIOns In response to these gnevances the partIes entered Into dIscussIOns and ultImately agreed upon two Memoranda of Settlement concernIng the apphcatIOn 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)) outhned 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 tune 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 FehcIty Bnggs, VIce Chair of the Gnevance Settlement Board wIll be seIzed wIth resolvIng any dIsputes that anse from the unplementatIOn 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 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 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 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 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 Shelly Holden IS a CorrectIOnal officer who once worked at Ontano CorrectIOnal InstItute She filed a gnevance on October 18, 2002 allegIng that the Employer vIOlated the CollectIve Agreement because other officers wIth less semonty "were granted" posItIOn at Metro East DetentIOn Centre She also filed a gnevance allegIng that the Employer was harassIng her and by way of remedy requested that such actIvIty cease and desIst On December 18, 2001 the Employer wrote to the gnevor that she would be assIgned to work at Maplehurst and would be notIfied at a later tIme as to the date 5 of the commencement of her new assIgnment On August 23, 2003 the gnevor asked for InfOnnatIOn regardIng lateral transfer requests to eIther the Toronto East DetentIOn Centre or the WhItby JaIl She was told on August 30, 2002 that she was on the actIve hst for lateral transfers to these InstItutIOns but she should contact the Supenntendent of Maplehurst as to the tune she should report to work on September 17, 2002 As mentIOned above, the gnevor asserted that there were some officers wIth less semonty who were assIgned to work at Toronto East DetentIOn Centre Although I have no eVIdence to substantIate that contentIOn, It IS possible, perhaps even likely that It IS correct However, havIng said that, It IS not a vIOlatIOn of eIther the CollectIve Agreement or of any MERC agreement Throughout the transItIOn process people were surplussed and gIven vanous optIOns to whIch they were entItled under the CollectIve Agreement DependIng on the vanous employee nghts and the optIOns those employees chose, assIgnments were made WhIle the actual determInatIOn as to how people were assIgned certaIn posItIOns mIght be dIfficult for the employees to apprecIate, It IS my vIew that In the vast maJonty of Instances IndIVIdual nghts were not vIOlated. There was much work for the transItIOn ImplementatIOn commIttee to do gIven the number of posItIOns elunInated. They undertook theIr responsIbIhty to provIde all wIth optIOns and entItlements senously In thIS Instance the commIttee comphed WIth the terms and prOVISIOns of the CollectIve Agreement and the appropnate MERC agreements 6 There IS no eVIdence before me that would have me uphold the gnevances VIce-Chair