Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-2383.Gilham et al.03-10-29 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# 2002-2383 2002-2753 2002-2815 UNION# 2003-0218-0002, 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 (GIlham 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 August 12,2003 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 a further decIsIOn that consIders some of the dIsputes that have ansen under the MERC Memoranda of Settlement. 3 SImIlar to the process utIlIzed for earlIer decIsIOns regardIng these transItIOn matters, the partIes attended at an arbItratIOn heanng and provIded facts and submIssIOns concernIng the outstandIng Issues In large measure the facts were In agreement and It was not necessary to call eVIdence Gnevances were filed by three CorrectIOnal Officers, C Barnard, S GIlham and P Muth. Each gnevance alleges that the Mimstry and "tranSItIOn team" dId not follow the procedures for postIng and fillIng of vacanCIes or new posItIOns as outlIned In ArtIcle 6 of the collectIve agreement. The Burtch CorrectIOnal Centre IS WIthIn forty kIlometers of Brantford JaIl Employees from both the Brantford JaIl and those who were elIgIble at the Burtch CorrectIOnal Centre were surplussed on the same date In the fall of 2002 the employees at the Brantford JaIl were told that theIr closure date would be sIgmficantly delayed untIl at least 2005 As a result, the partIes agreed to reSCInd surplus notIces If IndIVIdual employees so chose There was an electIOn process In thIS regard and most employees elected to have theIr notIces wIthdrawn. Virtually all of the people that were bumped as the result of the ongInal Brantford JaIl surplus notIces were put back Into theIr posItIOns However at the conclUSIOn of thIS process there were some remaInIng vacanCIes at the Brantford JaIl In an effort to address thIS sItuatIOn the people who were surplus sed from Sprucedale who had no other assIgnment were assIgned to work at Brantford whIch IS WIthIn forty kIlometers of Sprucedale ArtIcle 6 6 2 of the collectIve agreement states The assIgnment of an employee to a vacancy In accordance wIth ArtIcle 7 (Pay AdmInIstratIon) 20 (Employment StabIlIty) 25 (Leave - SpeCIal) 42 (Long Term Income ProtectIOn) 50 (Pregnancy Leave) and 51 (Parental Leave) shall have pnonty over an assIgnment under ArtIcle 6 6 1 As I understand the ratIOnale applIed at the tIme that the Sprucedale employees were assIgned to work at the Brantford Jail It was done In an effort to assIgn employees who had not yet receIved an assIgnment under ArtIcle 20 an employment opportumty That motIvatIOn certaInly cannot be said to be eIther dISCnmInatory or otherwIse Improper Indeed, It makes good labour relatIOns sense 4 In a Memorandum of Settlement sIgned on October 8 2002 by the partIes, It was agreed that EffectIve September 30 2002 the employer shall wIthdraw surplus notIces Issued to current employees who had receIved surplus notIces as employees of the Brantford JaIl Also effectIve September 30 2002 the employer shall wIthdraw surplus notIces to current employees at other facIlItIes who receIved surplus notIces as a dIrect result of the Brantford JaIl surpluSSIng. It IS agreed that these wIthdrawals of notIce do not apply to those employees who chose to eXIt the OPS under ArtIcle 20 7 or who chose to eXIt and have eXIted as of September 30 2002 under ArtIcle 20.2 In my VIew there was no vIOlatIOn of the collectIve agreement and so the gnevances must be demed. Dated 11 Dronto tlus ~9lli day of October 2003 . Vice-Chair