The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005-1616.Wilson.09-10-23 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#2005-1616 GSB#2005-1616 UNION#2005-0440-0147UNION#2005-0440-0147 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 èÏÔÎÏ (Wilson) - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer BEFOREVice-Chair Felicity D. Briggs FOR THE UNION Stephen Giles Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer FOR THE EMPLOYER Greg Gledhill Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services Staff Relations Officer HEARINGMay 28, 2009. - 2 - DECISION [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 - 3 - 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. [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. - 4 - [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 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]Mr. Paul Wilson is a Correctional Officer at the Quinte Detention Centre. While a CO at St. Lawrence Valley Correctional and Treatment Centre/Brockville Jail he was issued an election letter. He stated his preferences to be SLVCTC and CECC in that order. However, later the same day that he made those wishes known, he contacted the Workforce Adjustment Unit and reversed the order of his choices. He elected CECC because he thought it was a decision that would ultimately get him to the Quinte Detention Centre. While awaiting a transfer to CECC he was offered an opportunity to go to QDC via lateral transfer. He accepted that opportunity and was disappointed to find out that he would not be receiving relocation costs. [10]It was the assertion of the grievor that he was given inaccurate information by the head of the Workforce Adjustment Unit and accordingly he should be given relocation expenses because he was going to be deployed to CECC which was beyond 40 km of his home. [11]There is no dispute that the grievor indicated he ultimately wanted to go to QDC. Further, the grievor was offered and accepted a lateral transfer. He could have declined the offered opportunity. [12]The Board was not provided with evidence of any ?inaccurate information? given to the grievor. Having said that, I acknowledge that during the height of transitional moves around the Province, the state of positions changed quickly and occasionally information - 5 - provided to individuals was outdated as soon as it was supplied. However, that does not lead me to find that there has been a violation of the Collective Agreement or any MERC agreement and accordingly, the grievance is denied. rd Dated at Toronto this 23 day of October 2009. Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair