HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-0387.Assing et al.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#2007-0387, 2007-0388, 2007-0389, 2007-0391, 2007-0392, 2007-0393, 2007-0394,
2007-0395, 2007-0396, 2007-0401, 2007-0402, 2007-0403, 2007-0404, 2007-0405, 2007-0406,
2007-0418, 2007-0419, 2007-0420, 2007-0428, 2007-0429, 2007-0430
UNION#2006-0108-0043, 2006-0108-0044, 2006-0108-0045, 2006-0108-0047,
2006-0108-0048, 2006-0108-0050, 2006-0108-0051, 2006-0108-0052, 2006-0108-0057,
2006-0108-0058, 2006-0108-0059, 2006-0108-0060, 2006-0108-0061, 2006-0108-0062,
2006-0108-0072, 2006-0108-0073, 2006-0108-0074, 2006-0108-0082, 2006-0108-0083,
2006-0108-0084
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Assing 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 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]It is this agreement that provides me with the jurisdiction to resolve the
outstanding matters.
- 3 -
[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
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.
- 4 -
[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]Mr. Tim Assing and other Correctional Officers at Elgin Middlesex
Detention Centre filed grievances in 2006 that allege their ?roll-over? to
classified status was unduly delayed and as a result they are entitled to a
variety of benefits that they did not receive in a timely fashion.
[10]This Board has dealt with this issue previously. In each instance it has been
said that while some roll-overs have taken longer than expected, none have
been beyond the anticipated date for reasons other than operational
bona fide
issues. Certainly no bad faith has been proven.
[11]The following is a list of the grievances included in this decision:
Tim Assing 2007-0387
2007-0388
2007-0389
Scott Black 2007-0391
2007-0392
- 5 -
Curtis Courtemanche 2007-0393
2007-0394
2007-0395
2007-0396
Patricia Goden 2007-0401
2007-0402
2007-0403
Miltiadis Gougoulias 2007-0404
2007-0405
2007-0406
Ryan McLaren 2007-0418
2007-0419
2007-0420
Rebecca Townsend 2007-0428
2007-0429
2007-0430
[12]The grievances are denied.
th
Dated at Toronto this 15 day of June 2010.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair