HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-0402.Radbourn.10-06-15 Decision
Commission de
Crown Employees
Grievance
règlement des
Settlement Board
griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Bureau 600
Toronto, Ontario M5G
180, rue Dundas Ouest
1Z8
Toronto (Ontario) M5G
Tel. (416) 326-1388
1Z8
Fax (416) 326-1396
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB#2009-0402
UNION#2009-0234-0046
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Radbourn)
Union
- 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
HEARINGJanuary 7, 2010, June 4, 2010.
- 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 -
[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 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
- 4 -
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 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]Ms. Janet Radbourn grieved that she was improperly surplussed from her
position as a Medical Clerk at Maplehurst. The grievor stated in her notes
that:
In my frustration, seeking to maintain my career path and relying
on the detrimental reliance that my position no longer existed at
Maplehurst, I applied for and won the position of Medical Clerk at
Roy McMurtry Youth Centre in Brampton. Even though I am
sustained in the same job classification I feel disadvantaged that I
have been wrongly removed from my former position which
continues to be staffed in my original facility and home town.
- 5 -
[10]Originally the grievor was redeployed to OCI into a position that was
different from what she had been told she would occupy. Apparently it was
for this reason she applied for the position at Roy McMurtry.
[11]Further, the grievor contended that the position of Medical Clerk continues
to exist at Maplehurst and is occupied by an employee she believes to have
less seniority. However, there was no evidence that such a full time position
exists.
[12]The grievance at hand alleges an improper surplus. I found no evidence of a
violation of the Collective Agreement and therefore the grievance is denied.
th
Dated at Toronto this 15 day of June 2010.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair