Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-2400.Muth.03-10-28 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# 2002-2400 UNION# 2002-0218-0007 2002-0218-0008 2002-0218-0009 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (Muth) 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 11 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 1" (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 one of the numerous decIsIOns dealIng wIth dIsputes under the MERC Memoranda of Agreement. Peter Muth gneved that "the transItIOn team dId conspIre to mIslead those employees wIth ArtIcle 18 nghts by supplYIng to them a lIst of vacanCIes from InstItutIOns that was not a true and complete lIst from all provIncIal InstItutIOns" It was further asserted that "by not provIdIng thIS lIst to us In a tImely manner It allowed ArtIcle 20 employees to take those vacanCIes that would have been avaIlable to ArtIcle 18 employees If the completed lIst was avaIlable" By way of remedy Mr Muth requested that there be a "reset of the RFP date establIshIng ArtIcle 20 nghts to correspond wIth the exact cloSIng date of Burtch CorrectIOnal Centre" and an assIgnment of hIS chOIce wIthIn the OPS There IS a lateral transfer lIst and the gnevor had a nght to be put on that lIst In accordance wIth the collectIve agreement. Indeed, the transItIOn commIttee dId put the gnevor's name and others on the lIst for those InstItutIOns WIthIn reasonable dnvIng dIstance of Burtch 3 CorrectIOnal Centre such as ElgIn Middlesex DetentIOn Centre, OCI, HamIlton Wentworth DetentIOn Centre, Sarma JaIl, MimIco CorrectIOnal Centre, Toronto East DetentIOn Centre and the Toronto JaIl on October 25 2002 ThIS was done In an effort to gIve those AppendIx 18 correctIOnal officers an opportumty to contInue employment WIth the OPS At that tIme It was not known exactly how many vacanCIes eXIsted because the number fluctuated. In fact, these AppendIx 18 employees always had the nght to put theIr names on the lateral transfer lIst for any faCIlIty they desIred at any tIme Once establIshed, the lIst had to be applIed In accordance WIth semonty There IS nothIng In the Memorandum of Settlement that would oblIge the Employer to proVIde the lIst to any IndIVIdual employees Indeed, It made sense that the lIst was not proVIded at any partIcular tIme because of the consIderable fluctuatIOn. Further not all InstItutIOns were put onto the lIst. As the result of va no us CIrcumstances the Umon asked the Employer to add employees to the lateral lIst of other InstItutIOns Impacted by the RFP and the Employer agreed to do so At the tIme there were meetIngs held at Burtch CorrectIOnal Centre and employees were advIsed to put theIr names on the later transfer lIsts all over the proVInce to ensure placement. Unfortunately some lIke the gnevor faIled to take that adVIce Once the commIttee became aware that IndIVIduals dId not heed ItS adVIce, the commIttee agreed to put the names of AppendIx 18 employees on vanous lateral transfer lIsts to maXImIze theIr opportumtIes In the case of the gnevor Mr Muth was on the HamIlton lIst and he was subsequently offered a pOSItIOn at the HamIlton DetentIOn Centre whIch he declIned. In my VIew there IS nothIng In the Memorandum of Settlement or the collectIve agreement that oblIged the Employer to proVIde the lateral transfer lIsts Further I am frankly astomshed that there IS an allegatIOn that the transItIOn commIttee conspIred agaInst any employee or group of employees SInce the MERC 1 Memorandum of Settlement was sIgned I have been Involved In all of the dIsputes that have ansen dunng the transItIOn penod. It has been my observatIOn that the commIttee IS not only hard workIng but careful to ensure that nghts are protected. In thIS process there are a number of dIfficult cIrcumstances There are groups of employees who have competIng Interests There are fewer pOSItIOns than those that would have them SItuatIOns are ever changIng and some tImetables for cloSIng have been delayed or otherwIse not tImely However those are not the fault of the transItIOn commIttee and they should not be expected to bear the brunt of every frustratIOn. I find not a SCIntIlla of eVIdence of a transItIOn team conspIracy The gnevance IS demed.