HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-2403.Metcalfe.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# 2002-2403 2003-0517
UNION# 2002-0218-0005 2002-0218-0006 2003-0218-0040
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Metcalfe) 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 September 5 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 one of the numerous decIsIOns dealIng wIth dIsputes
under the MERC Memoranda of Agreement.
3
Ian Metcalfe was a CorrectIOnal Officer at Burtch CorrectIOnal Centre He filed three gnevances
The first was dIsposed of In an earlIer decIsIOn. The second alleged that he was Improperly
demed a Job trade request. It was Mr Metcalfe's contentIOn that hIS request for a Job trade was
demed because he lacked the Young Offender traInIng.
WhIle It IS accurate that the gnevor dId not, at the tIme have Young Offender traInIng that was
not the reason for the demal AccordIng to the eVIdence, he was demed the Job trade request
because the CorrectIOnal Officer that he wanted to trade Jobs WIth had elected to take a
Voluntary EXIt OptIOn and had matched WIth a correctIOnal officer who had ArtIcle 20 nghts and
who had more semonty than the gnevor AccordIngly the demal was not Improper
The final gnevance consIders that Mr Metcalfe had a temporary aSSIgnment as a maIntenance
plumber for a twelve month penod. As he declIned nghts under ArtIcle 20 he had nghts under
AppendIx 18 ImtIally all of the employees at Burtch CorrectIOnal Centre were offered a Job at
Central North CorrectIOnal Centre In accordance WIth AppendIx 18 However the gnevor
declIned that offer and was then entItled to the nghts provIded at ArtIcle 6C.2 of AppendIx 18
He elected to leave the employ of the Mimstry WIth a package as provIded under artIcle 6C 2
In the meantIme, a deCISIOn of Vice Chair Brown was released. AddItIOnally the partIes
negotIated the MERC Memoranda. In accordance WIth Part A of MERC 1 those WIth
entItlements under AppendIx 18 were offered ArtIcle 20 nghts WIth a lateral transfer to a
transItIOn cost centre AgaIn, the gnevor declIned.
Mr Metcalfe gneved that the "rules had changed" It was suggested that other employees were
In posseSSIOn of more InformatIOn than he had at the tIme There IS SImply no eVIdence to
substantIate that claim.
There was no dIspute that thIS was a turbulent tIme WIth vanous employees changIng theIr mInds
about whether to elect a VEO
The gnevor asserted that had he been In posseSSIOn of more InfOrmatIOn he would have done
thIngs dIfferently That mIght well be However when he opted out hIS nghts and elected to take
the package under artIcle 6C 2 of AppendIx 18 there was no further oblIgatIOn to appnse hIm of
4
InfOrmatIOn even If there were a change from the ongInal plan. AccordIngly thIS gnevance IS
dIsmIssed.
Vice-Chair