HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-2783.Taylor-Baptiste et al.07-03-05 Decision
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Commission de
reglement des griefs
des employes de la
Couronne
Nj
~
Ontario
Suite 600
180 Dundas Sl. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. : (416) 326-1388
Telec. : (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2005-2783
UNION# 2005-0229-0029
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Taylor-Baptiste et al.)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
Barry Stephens
Vice-Chair
BEFORE
Stephen Giles and Scott Andrews
Grievance Officers
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE UNION
Pauline Jones and Faith Crocker
Staff Relations Officers
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
FOR THE EMPLOYER
February 19,20 & 21, 2007.
HEARING
DEADLINE FOR WRITTEN
SUBMISSIONS
March 2, 2007.
2
Decision
INTRODUCTION
The Ministry and OPSEU have agreed to a Med-Arb Protocol, signed February 27, 2006.
Although OCI is not one of the institutions covered by the protocol, the parties agreed on
February 19,2007 to be bound by the terms of the protocol for this session. 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 one or two correctional officers from a
number of correctional institutions, including OCI, to work three to six month secondments. The
employer states that, after consulting with the Regional Office, it decided that employees at OCI
would not be offered the Mimico opportunity. The immediate reaction of many employees was,
one can imagine, somewhat scatological. Like a zephyr during a heat wave, the opportunity
seems to have spelled 'relief for a large number of employees at OCI. Drawn, no doubt, to the
chimera of "greener grass", the 68 grievors all assert they would have been interested in
transferring to Mimico. They seek a declaration, as well as compensation for the mileage and
3
travel time the two senior grievors would have incurred had they worked at Mimico for the
secondment period. The employer responds that the decision to decline the Mimico opportunity
at OCI was based on ongoing staffing requirements. The employer points out that the
opportunities in question were not posted positions under the collective agreement, and it was a
matter of management discretion as to whether they were offered to employees at OCI.
DECISION
The grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 5th day of March, 2007.
Barry