The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-3885.Kenney et al.06-11-24 Decision Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board Suite 600 180 Dundas Sl. West Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Commission de reglement des griefs des employes de la Couronne Nj ~ Ontario Bureau 600 180, rue Dundas Ouest Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tel. : (416) 326-1388 Telec. : (416) 326-1396 GSB# 2004-3885,2004-3886,2004-3887,2004-3888 UNION# 2005-0440-0005,2005-0440-0006, 2005-0440-0007, 2005-0440-0008 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT BETWEEN BEFORE FOR THE UNION FOR THE EMPLOYER HEARING Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Kenney et al.) - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Felicity D. Briggs Stephen Giles Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union Lucy Neal Staff Relations Officer Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services September 18,2006. Union Employer Vice-Chair 2 Decision In September of 1996 the Ministry of Correctional Services notified the Union 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 Union filed policy and individual grievances that alleged various breaches of the collective agreement including article 6 and article 31.15 as well as grievances relating to the filling of correctional officer positions. In response to these grievances the parties entered into discussions and ultimately agreed upon two Memoranda of Settlement concerning the application of the collective agreement during the "first phase of the Ministry's transition". One memorandum, dated May 3, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "MERC 1" (Ministry 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 principles and settled all of the grievances identified in the related MERC appendices, filed up to that point in time. The parties continued to negotiate and agree upon further conditions regarding the transition matters. MERC 3 was signed by the parties on February 25, 2002. While it was agreed in each case that the settlements were "without prejudice or precedent to positions either the union or the employer may take on the same issues in future discussions", the parties recognized that disputes might arise regarding the implementation of the memoranda. Accordingly, they agreed, at Part G, paragraph 8: 3 The parties agree that they will request that Felicity Briggs, Vice Chair of the Grievance Settlement Board will be seized with resolving any disputes that arise from the implementation of this agreement. It is this agreement that provides me with the jurisdiction 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 various phases of the restructuring. Given the complexity and size of the task of restructuring and decommissioning of institutions, it is not surprising that a number of grievances and disputes arose. This is another of the disputes that have arisen under the MERC Memorandum of Settlement. When I was initially invited to hear theses transition disputes, the parties agreed that process to be followed for the determination of these matters would be virtually identical to that found in Article 22.16.2 which states: The mediator/arbitrator shall endeavour to assist the parties to settle the grievance by mediation. If the parties are unable to settle the grievance by mediation, the mediator/arbitrator shall determine the grievance by arbitration. When determining the gnevance by arbitration, the mediator/arbitrator may limit the nature and extent of the evidence and may impose such conditions as he or she considers appropriate. The mediator/arbitrator shall give a succinct decision within five (5) days after completing proceedings, unless the parties agree otherwise. 4 The transition committee has dealt with dozens of grievances and complaints prior to the mediation/arbitration process. There have been many other grievances 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 grievances that I have decided, in accordance with my jurisdiction to so determine, that grievances are to be presented by way of each party presenting a statement of the facts with accompanying submissions. Notwithstanding that some grievors might wish to attend and provide oral evidence, to date, this process has been efficient and has allowed the parties to remain relatively current with disputes that arise from the continuing transition process. Not surprisingly, in a few instances there has been some confusion about the certain facts or simply insufficient detail has been provided. On those occasions I have directed the parties to speak again with their principles to ascertain the facts or the rationale behind the particular outstanding matter. In each case this has been done to my satisfaction. It is essential in this process to avoid accumulating a backlog of disputes. The task of resolving these issues in a timely fashion was, from the outset, a formidable one. With ongoing changes in Ministerial boundaries and other organizational alterations, the task has lately become larger, not smaller. It is for these reasons that the process I have outlined is appropriate in these circumstances. Jeff Baker is a Correctional Officer at St. Lawrence Valley Correctional and Treatment Centre. He and three other Correctional Officers filed grievances in February of 2005 that alleged: On June 23, 2003, I began a temporary assignment at S.L.V.C.T.C. for Phase 1 until the completion of Phase 2. In February 2004 employees from 5 Rideau Correctional and Treatment Centre were assigned temporary assignments here with paid mileage, travel time and meal allowances. On January 28, 2005, I was informed by senior management that my position at S.L.V.C.T.C. would be determined once again by election/seniority including those employees on temporary assignment that elected not to come here in Phase 1. I should be entitled (to) expenses, travel time and mileage. By way of remedy he requested "the same financial compensation, mileage, travel time and meal allowance as other temporary assigned employees" retroactive to July 22, 2003. It was the Employer's position that in the event these grievances were successful the grievors would be entitled only to financial redress dating back to thirty days prior to the filing date. This is not the first time that this Board has dealt with this matter. The grievors were not temporarily assigned to S.L.V.C.T.C. They were permanently assigned and are therefore not entitled to travel time and mileage. I will review the relevant employment history for Mr. Baker. The other grievors are somewhat but not substantively different. Mr. Baker was a Correctional officer working at the Brockville Jail. In November of 2002 he was given an option letter and because of his seniority he was granted his choice which was an assignment to work at SL VCTC. He was to move to his new assignment at a future date. In April of 2003 he elected to move to SL VCTC in the second phase and he continued to work at Brockville. He was advised in March of 2004 that there was an opportunity at the youth unit at Ontario Correctional and Detention Centre. He again elected to remain at Brockville. In January of 2004 the employees and the 6 Union were advised that the Brockville facility was not closing and that the new remand unit was not opening. The Employer informed employees on March 23, 2005 that these facilities were one employer and that the grievor's employment was confirmed at SL VCTC. To be clear, the grievor never moved from his original work location and yet he estimates that he is entitled to approximately $27,000 in travel time and expenses. I think not. There is nothing in the Collective Agreement or any MERC agreement that would have me find for the grievors. Vice-Chair