Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-2568.Piatek.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# 2002-2568 UNION# 2003-0218-0035 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (Platek) Grievor - and - The Crown III 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 StaffRelatlOns Officer Mimstry of PublIc Safety and Secunty HEARING August 12,2003 2 DECISION In September of 1996 the Mimstry of CorrectlOnal ServIces notIfied the Umon and employees at a number of provIncIal correctlOnal InstltutlOns 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 correctlOnal officer posltlOns In response to these gnevances the partIes entered Into dlscusslOns and ultImately agreed upon two Memoranda of Settlement concermng the applIcatlOn of the collectIve agreement dunng the "first phase of the Mimstry's transltlOn" One memorandum, dated May 3 2000 (hereInafter referred to as "MERC 1" (Mimstry Employment RelatlOns CommIttee)) outlIned condltlOns for the correctlOnal officers whIle the second, dated July 19 2001 (hereInafter referred to as "MERC 2") provIded for the non-correctlOnal officer staff Both agreements were subject to ratlficatlOn by respectIve pnnclples 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 posltlOns eIther the umon or the employer may take on the same Issues In future dlscusslOns" the partIes recogmzed that dIsputes mIght anse regardIng the ImplementatlOn 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 ImplementatlOn of thIS agreement. It IS thIS agreement that provIdes me wIth the jUnSdlctlOn to resolve the outstandIng matters Both MERC 1 and MERC 2 are lengthy and comprehensIve documents that provIde for the IdentlficatlOn of vacanCIes and posltlOns and the procedure for fillIng those posltlOns as they become avaIlable throughout vanous phases of the restructunng. GIven the complexIty and SIze of the task of restructunng and decommlsslOmng of InstltutlOns, It IS not surpnSIng that a number of gnevances and dIsputes arose ThIS IS one of the numerous declslOns dealIng wIth dIsputes under the MERC Memoranda of Agreement. Gene Platek was an Industnal Officer 2 temporanly assIgned to work at the Burtch CorrectlOnal Centre He gneved that he was "treated dIfferently than other employees" and asked, by way of remedy to be "temporanly assIgned to a work posltlOn wIthIn reasonable commutIng dIstance of Burtch CorrectlOnal Centre" Pnor to hIS temporary assIgnment Mr Platek receIved ArtIcle 20 nghts and elected to take a posltlOn beyond forty kIlometers He accepted a posltlOn at TRlLCOR attached to the Millbrook facIlIty However he was allowed to remaIn at Burtch on a temporary assIgnment. When Burtch closed he was told to report to hIS permanent posltlOn at TRlLCOR, Millbrook. Mr Platek worked for SIX shIfts at TRlLCOR Millbrook before he notIfied the Employer that was III He has been on Short Term DIsabIlIty leave for approxImately five months 3 As mentlOned earlIer the gnevor alleged that he was treated dIfferently from other Burtch CorrectlOnal Centre employees Indeed, there was no dIspute between the partIes that he was treated dIfferently However that was because unlIke others at Burtch CorrectlOnal Centre, the gnevor was an employee of TRlLCOR Millbrook wIth a temporary work assIgnment. As such, he was treated In accordance wIth the terms and condltlOns agreed to by the partIes AccordIngly the gnevance IS dIsmIssed.