Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-2440.Chmurzynski.07-01-30 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 Bureau 600 180, rue Dundas Ouest Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tel. : (416) 326-1388 Telec. : (416) 326-1396 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under Nj ~ Ontario GSB# 2005-2440 UNION# 2005-0234-0290 THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT BETWEEN BEFORE FOR THE UNION FOR THE EMPLOYER HEARING DEADLINE FOR WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Chmurzynski) - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Barry Stephens Stephen Giles Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union Pauline Jones Staff Relations Officer Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services December 6,2006. December 19, 2006. Union Employer Vice-Chair 2 Decision INTRODUCTION The parties have agreed to a Med-Arb Protocol, signed February 27, 2006. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol here. Suffice it to say that, as part of the Protocol, the parties have agreed to a "True Mediation-Arbitration" process, wherein each provides the vice-chair with submissions, which include the facts and authorities each relies upon. The process adopted by the parties provides for a canvassing of the facts during the mediation phase under the Protocol. Arbitration decisions are issued in accordance with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement, without reasons, and are without prejudice or precedent. The parties were unable to resolve this matter in mediation. Accordingly, the matter has been referred to me as a True Mediation/Arbitration decision under the Protocol. FACTS In October 2005, the Mimico facility was looking for correctional officers at other institutions to work three-month secondments. The grievor was interested in transferring to Mimico. He heard about the secondment opportunity, and wrote to the superintendents of both facilities expressing interest. The grievor was advised that the superintendent at Maplehurst had decided that employees there would not be offered the Mimico opportunity. The grievor asserts that this was a breach of his rights. He seeks a declaration, as well as compensation for the traveling expenses he would have incurred had he worked at Mimico for three months. The employer responds that the decision to decline the Mimico opportunity at Maplehurst was based on the ongoing difficulties with staffing at Maplehurst, and was for bona fide business reasons. The employer points out that the opportunities in question were not posted positions under the collective agreement. 3 DECISION The grievance is dismissed. Dated at Toronto, this 30th day of January, 2007. Barry