The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006-0604.Collin et al.09-06-10 Decision Commission de Commission de Crown Employeess Grievance Settlement Grievance Settlement règlement des griefs règlement des griefs BoardBoard des employés de la des employés de la Couronne Couronne Suite 600 Suite 600 Bureau 600 Bureau 600 180 Dundas St. West 180 Dundas St. West 180, rue Dundas Ouest 180, rue Dundas Ouest Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tél. : (416) 326-1388 Tél. : (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Fax (416) 326-1396 Téléc. : (416) 326-1396 Téléc. : (416) 326-1396 GSB#2006-0604, 2006-0605, 2006-0606, 2006-0607, 2006-0608, 2006-0609, 2006-0610, 2006-0809, GSB#2006-0604, 2006-0605, 2006-0606, 2006-0607, 2006-0608, 2006-0609, 2006-0610, 2006-0809, 2006-1802, 2006-2326, 2007-0155 2006-1802, 2006-2326, 2007-0155 UNION#2006-0411-0013, 2006-0411-0017, 2006-0411-0015, 2006-0411-0016, 2006-0411-0018, UNION#2006-0411-0013, 2006-0411-0017, 2006-0411-0015, 2006-0411-0016, 2006-0411-0018, 2006-0411-0019, 2006-0411-0020, 2006-0411-0028, 2006-0411-0056, 2006-0368-0195, 2006-0411-0019, 2006-0411-0020, 2006-0411-0028, 2006-0411-0056, 2006-0368-0195, 2005-0999-00322005-0999-0032 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UUnnddeerr THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTHE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT TIVE BARGAINING ACT BBeeffoorree THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEENBETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Collin et al) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer BEFOREFelicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair FOR THE UNIONStephen Giles Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer FOR THE EMPLOYERGreg Gledhill Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services Staff Relations Officer HEARINGOctober 31, 2008 and May 28, 2009. -2- [1]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. [2]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: 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. [3]It is this agreement that provides me with the jurisdiction to resolve the outstanding matters. [4]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 phases of the restructuring. Given the as they become available throughout various complexity and size of the task of restructuring and decommissioning of institutions, it is -3- 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. [5]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 grievance 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. [6]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. [7]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. [8]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 -4- 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. [9]On February 12, 2008, the parties signed a Memorandum of Agreement regarding roll- over of unclassified positions. That Agreement stated, in part: The Parties agree that the vacancies listed in Appendix B and any additional vacancies that the Ministry receives approval and clearance to fill during the period of this agreement will be filled. The parties agree to limit the method of filling these vacancies by mutual agreement of the parties to option number one and three only of the Correctional Officer Recruitment Policy for the period from the signing of this document until December 31, 2008. This period may be extended by agreement of the parties but it is not to be extended by operation of any statutory freeze that may be applicable at the time. [10]In accordance with paragraph three of this Agreement I am seized with all outstanding matters that flow from its interpretation and implementation. [11]There remains an outstanding issue in dispute between the parties. A number of unclassified Correctional Officers have filed grievances that allege the Employer needlessly delayed the implementation of this Agreement thereby postponing their roll- over to classified status. As a result they have lost overtime opportunities. [12]In its submissions the Union noted that there were some institutions that acknowledged the roll-overs were imminent and therefore allowed those officers about to be rolled over to work a portion of the overtime normally reserved for classified Correctional Officers. The Union contended that this disparity needed redress and the only appropriate method of doing so is to award these classified Correctional Officers compensation for their lost overtime opportunities. [13]In these circumstances the Union could not discharge its onus to show that the delay was due to bad faith. The Employer reviewed a number of reasons for the delay of the implementation. -5- [14]I accept that there was no bad faith involved in the delay. I appreciate that the Employer might have acted with more dispatch but its failure to do so does not, in these circumstances, lead me to find for the grievors. [15]The grievances listed below are denied. Denis Collin Group 2006-0411-0013 John Barbro 2006-0411-0015 2006-0411-0016 2006-0411-0017 2006-0411-0018 2006-0411-0019 2006-0411-0020 Michelle Gaunce 2006-0411-0056 Pierre St. Jean 2006-0411-0028 Union 2005-0999-0032 Warren Eley 2006-0368-0195 th Dated in Toronto this 10 day of June 2009. Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair