Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-2133.Barbora et al.05-01-10 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# 2002-2133 UNION# 2002-0517-0055 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (Barbara et al ) Union - and - The Crown III 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 Greg GledhIll Staff RelatIOns Officer Mimstry of Commumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces HEARING November 10 2004 2 DeCISIon In September of 1996 the Mimstry 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 concermng the applIcatIOn of the collectIve agreement dunng the "first phase of the Mimstry's transItIOn" One memorandum, dated May 3 2000 (hereInafter referred to as "MERC I" (Mimstry Employment RelatIOns CommIttee)) outlIned condItIOns for the correctIOnal officers whIle 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 pnncIples and settled all of the gnevances IdentIfied In the related MERC appendIces, filed up to that pOInt In tIme 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 ImplementatIOn of thIS agreement. 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 vanous phases of the restructunng. GIven the complexIty and SIze of the task of restructunng 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. 3 When I was ImtIally 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 determInIng 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 determIne that gnevances are to be presented by way of 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, thIS 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 pnncIples 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 Mimstenal 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 4 Ms Barbora filed a group gnevance on behalf of a number of CorrectIOnal Officers at the Metro West DetentIOn Centre The gnevors had contInued to work at Metro West aWaitIng theIr transfer under ArtIcle 2 to the new Vamer Centre for Women In Milton. At that tIme the old Vamer Centre for Women (in Brampton) was stIll In operatIOn. There was a group of CorrectIOnal Officers who In accordance wIth ArtIcle 20 had been permanently assIgned to the new Vamer Centre for Women (Milton) from vanous decommIssIOned InstItutIOns Based on operatIOnal reqUIrements, these CorrectIOnal Officers were temporanly placed at the old Vamer Centre In Brampton. These employees were paid for theIr travel tIme and mIleage whIle they temporanly worked at the old Vamer Centre In Brampton whIle aWaitIng theIr permanent assIgnment to the new Vamer Centre for Women In Milton. At the same tIme, a number of CorrectIOnal Officers who prevIOusly owned posItIOns at the Guelph CorrectIOnal Centre had been assIgned to the old Vamer Centre for Women (Brampton) As a result of the permanent lateral transfer to the old Vamer Centre for Women (Brampton) they were not entItled to and dId not receIve travel tIme and mIleage whIle workIng at the old Vamer Centre for Women (Brampton) Dunng thIS penod there was a CorrectIOnal Officer ongInally from the Guelph CorrectIOnal Centre who had been assIgned to the old Vamer Centre for Women by way of lateral transfer but dId not stay He was almost ImmedIately assIgned on a temporary basIs to Metro West DetentIOn Centre The Employer provIded hIm wIth compensatIOn for travel tIme and mIleage for that assIgnment. The gnevors learned of thIS arrangement and now ask to be sImIlarly treated, that IS, they gneve for travel tIme and mIleage There was no dIspute that at some pOInt subsequent to thIS gnevance beIng filed, the Employer stopped paYIng thIS CorrectIOnal Officer for travel tIme and mIleage WhIle I understand and apprecIate the frustratIOn of the gnevors who worked alongsIde an IndIVIdual who was gettIng a benefit that they were not reCeIVIng, there IS no doubt that the gnevors are not entItled to travel tIme and mIleage for theIr work at Metro West DetentIOn Centre Indeed, I faIl to understand why the Employer provIded the travel tIme and mIleage to 5 the CorrectIOnal Officer who dId not stay at the new Vamer Centre In the first Instance There IS no such entItlement under the CollectIve Agreement or any other Memorandum of Agreement. Therefore, I cannot provIde the remedy requested by the gnevors The gnevors also allege that they should have been moved to the new Vamer Centre for Women In accordance wIth overall semonty The MERC 1 agreement, dated May 23 2001 IdentIfies employees to be assIgned to the new Maplehurst Female InstItutIOn whIch later became the Vamer Centre for Women. The actual tImIng WIth respect to reportIng dates was wIthIn management's nghts to determIne In accordance wIth ArtIcle 2 of the CollectIve Agreement. In accordance wIth MERC 1 certaIn employees, IncludIng the gnevors were asked to IndIcate theIr Interest In assIgnment to Maplehurst Female InstItutIOn. After expreSSIng theIr Interest In wntIng each was Issued a letter IndIcatIng that they "wIll be assIgned to Maplehurst Female InstItutIOn" It was the posItIOn of the gnevors that theIr assIgnment to Maplehurst Female InstItutIOn was effectIve the date of that letter that IS, December 18 2001 The Employer's VIew was that the gnevor were told to report to theIr new assIgnment In accordance wIth operatIOnal reqUIrements and semonty whIch IS congruent WIth theIr nghts under ArtIcle 2 of the CollectIve Agreement. Further the eVIdence IndIcated that the reportIng date was made clear to each IndIVIdual In subsequent letters After consIderatIOn, I agree wIth the Employer's submIssIOns and therefore the gnevance IS demed. Dated ,Toronto thI: FelicIty D Bng s Vice-Chair