The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-1448.Barber.06-05-15 Decision Crown Employees Commission de Nj 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# 2003-1448 2003-1449 UNION# 2003-0234-0237 2003-0234-0239 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (Barber) Union - and - The Crown In RIght of Ontano (Mimstry ofCommumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer BEFORE FelIcIty D Bnggs Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION Stephen GIles Gnevance Officer Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon FOR THE EMPLOYER Lucy Neal Semor Staff RelatIOns Officer Mimstry of Commumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces HEARING March 23 2006 2 DeCISIon In September of 1996 the MmIstry of CorrectIOnal ServIces notIfied the UnIon and employees at a number of provmcIaI correctIOnal mstItutIOns that theIr facIlItIes would be closed and/or restructured over the next few years On June 6, 2000 and June 29, 2000 the UnIon filed pohcy and mdIvIdual gnevances that alleged vanous breaches of the CollectIve Agreement mcludmg ArtIcle 6 and ArtIcle 31 15 as well as gnevances relatmg to the filhng of CorrectIOnal Officer posItIOns In response to these gnevances the partIes entered mto dIscussIOns and ultImately agreed upon two Memoranda of Settlement concernmg the apphcatIOn of the collectIve agreement dunng the "first phase of the MmIstry's transItIOn" One memorandum, dated May 3, 2000 (heremafter referred to as "MERC 1" (MmIstry Employment RelatIOns CommIttee)) outhned condItIons for the correctIOnal officers wlule the second, dated July 19,2001 (heremafter referred to as "MERC 2") provIded for the non-correctIOnal officer staff Both agreements were subJect to ratIficatIOn by respectIve prmcIples and settled all of the gnevances IdentIfied m the related MERC appendIces, filed up to that pomt m tllne WhIle It was agreed m each case that the settlements were "wIthout preJudIce or precedent to posItIOns eIther the UnIon or the employer may take on the same Issues m future dIscussIOns", the partIes recognIzed that dIsputes mIght anse regardmg the ImplementatIOn of the memoranda. Accordmgly, they agreed, at Part G, paragraph 8 The partIes agree that they wIll request that FehcIty Bnggs, VIce Chair of the Gnevance Settlement Board wIll be seIzed wIth resolvmg any dIsputes that anse from the llnplementatIOn of tlus agreement 3 It IS thIS agreement that provIdes me wIth the JunsdIctIOn to resolve the outstandmg 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 filhng those posItIOns as they become aVailable throughout varIOUS phases of the restructunng GIven the complexIty and SIze of the task of restnlctunng and decommISSIOnIng of mstItutIOns, It IS not surpnsmg that a number of gnevances and dIsputes arose ThIS IS another of the dIsputes that have ansen under the MERC Memorandum of Settlement Wilen I was mItIally mVIted to hear theses transItIOn dIsputes, the partIes agreed that process to be followed for the determmatIOn of these matters would be vIrtually IdentIcal to that found m 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 determme the gnevance by arbItratIOn Wilen detennmmg the gnevance by arbItratIOn, the mediator/arbItrator may hmIt the nature and extent of the eVIdence and may Impose such condItIons as he or she consIders appropnate The mediator/arbItrator shall gIve a succmct decIsIOn wIthm five (5) days after completmg proceedmgs, unless the partIes agree otherwIse The transItIOn commIttee has dealt wIth dozens of gnevances and complamts 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, m accordance wIth my JunsdIctIOn to so detennme, that gnevances are to be presented by way of 4 each party presentmg a statement of the facts wIth accompanymg submIssIOns NotwIthstandmg that some gnevors mIght wIsh to attend and provIde oral eVIdence, to date, tlus process has been efficIent and has allowed the partIes to rem am relatIvely current wIth dIsputes that anse from the contmumg transItIOn process Not surpnsmgly, m a few mstances there has been some confusIOn about the certam facts or sImply msufficIent detail has been provIded. On those occaSIOns I have dIrected the partIes to speak agam wIth theIr prmcIples to ascertam the facts or the ratIOnale behmd the partIcular outstandmg matter In each case thIS has been done to my satIsfactIOn It IS essentIal m thIS process to aVOId accumulatmg a backlog of dIsputes The task of resolvmg these Issues m a tImely fashIOn was, from the outset, a formIdable one WIth ongomg changes m MmIstenal boundanes and other organIzatIonal alteratIOns, the task has lately become larger, not smaller It IS for these reasons that the process I have outlmed IS appropnate m these CIrcumstances Stewart Barber IS a CorrectIOnal Officer and he filed a Group Gnevance allegmg the Employer vIOlated CollectIve Agreement by faIhng to provIde "equal employment opportunItIes" to a number of employees at Guelph Assessment and Treatment Centre m the spnng of2003 ThIS gnevance was filed because Mr Barber IS of the VIew that the Employer purposely kept employees unmfonned about the tllnmg of the closure of GA TU Accordmg to the gnevor, a memorandum was posted on June 9, 2003 mformmg 5 VIsItors to the mmates that the mstItutIOn would be closmg wIthm a week. When challenged about tlus memorandum, the Employer removed It Employees were mfonned on June 12,2003 that a meetmg would be held the followmg day At that meetmg employees were told that the mstItutIOn was bemg closed and that they were to report to Maplehurst the followmg week. I revIewed the gnevor's employment record and the facts reveal a somewhat dIfferent hIstory Mr Barber was notIfied on Apnl 15, 2003 that he was to be surplussed. He elected re-deployment and notIfied the Employer of the same on Apnl 22, 2003 The gnevor was mformed m a letter dated May 1, 2003 that he would be assIgned to work at Maplehurst CorrectIOnal Complex and he accepted that assIgnment the followmg day He was advIsed of the date to report to Maplehurst m a letter dated June 13,2003 As a result of the above-alleged vIOlatIOn, Mr Barber was of the VIew that he was entItled to travel tllne and mIleage for the first SIX months of Ius assIgnment to Maplehurst Accordmg to the UnIon, after the gnevor reported to hIS new assIgnment at Maplehurst he became aware that four other CorrectIOnal Officers had been allowed to stay at GA TU Those assIgnments were not Implemented m accordance wIth senIonty and lasted for approxImately SIX months ThIS precIse fact sItuatIOn has been consIdered prevIOusly by tlus Board In an earher decIsIOn thIS Board found that the MERC agreement provIdes that employees can remam at mstItutIOns after the mmates had left when there IS mutual agreement to that affect In tlus case the Employer dId not agree to allow Mr Barber to contmue at GATU The Employer's failure to do so IS not a vIOlatIOn of 6 any MERC Agreement or the CollectIve Agreement These assIgnments dId not have to be assIgned on a first come first served basIs or on the basIs of senIonty The Employer was entItled to choose whIch employees to remam and so long as those employees were wIllmg to be so assIgned, that arrangement was m accordance wIth the MERC agreement WIule tlus sItuatIOn mIght have been frustratmg to the gnevor, I must dIsmIss the gnevance The gnevor filed a second gnevance allegmg the Employer faIled to provIde proper notIce of a schedule change dunng tlus penod No eVIdence was provIded that there were any ImpropnetIes regardmg the schedulmg of the gnevor or others Further, I understand that the compressed work week schedules are agreed at the local level For those reasons tlus gnevance IS denIed. Dated m Toronto thIS 15th day of May 2006 VIce-Chair