The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007-3533.Dumont et al.10-06-18 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#2007-3533 UNION#2008-0234-0003 Additional Files listed in Schedule ?A? IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Dumont 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 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. [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. - 3 - [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 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]A group grievance was filed by a number of unclassified Correctional Officers at Maplehurst Correctional Centre. The grievance alleged that there was an inequity - 4 - regarding the working conditions and the scheduling practices as between Classified and Unclassified staff. [10]On behalf of the grievors the Union contended that this reduction of unclassified staff can lead to health and safety issues, training inadequacies, excessive overtime usage as well as other labour relation problems. [11]The Employer asserted that it has an unfettered management right to determine the workforce and this Board has no jurisdiction to make an order as requested by the Union. [12]While I understand the concerns set out by the Union, I am of the view that the Employer is right. I am without the jurisdiction to uphold these grievances. The grievances are denied. th Dated at Toronto this 18 day of June 2010. Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair - 5 - Schedule ?A? Grievor GSB Number Union File Number Lunario, Gutlmar 2007-3534 2008-0234-0004 Swierczynski, Albert 2007-3535 2008-0234-0005 Scane, Ronald 2007-3536 2008-0234-0006 Lowe, Jason 2007-3537 2008-0234-0007 Pyett, Sean 2007-3538 2008-0234-0008 Ochocinski, Alicia 2007-3539 2008-0234-0009 Cronin, Mark 2007-3540 2008-0234-0010 Fenn, Kerry 2007-3541 2008-0234-0011 Hudson, Wayne 2007-3542 2008-0234-0012 Jensen, Cole 2007-3543 2008-0234-0013 Crocker, Dustin 2007-3544 2008-0234-0014 Tracey, Chris 2007-35452008-0234-0015 Atkinson, Robin 2007-3546 2008-0234-0016 Foran, Rick 2007-3547 2008-0234-0017 Laderoute, Scott 2007-3548 2008-0234-0018 Seguin, Gary 2007-3549 2008-0234-0019 Wilson, Derek 2007-3550 2008-0234-0020 Felder, Zachary 2007-3551 2008-0234-0021 Johnson, James 2007-3552 2008-0234-0022 Akyoko, Felicia 2007-3553 2008-0234-0023 Graham, Ryan 2007-3554 2008-0234-0024 Andrews, Jeff et al 2007-3642 2008-0234-0057 Dearlove, Alison 2007-3643 2008-0234-0058 Blenkinsop, Shane 2007-3644 2008-0234-0059 Courtemanche, Celine 2007-3645 2008-0234-0060 Lowry, Anisia 2007-3646 2008-0234-0061 Murray, Catherine 2007-3647 2008-0234-0062 Young-Richards, Alexandra 2007-3648 2008-0234-0063 Petrus, Natasha 2007-3649 2008-0234-0064 Gordon, Monica 2007-3650 2008-0234-0065 Stavropoulos, Angela 2007-3651 2008-0234-0066 Nash, Sarah 2007-3652 2008-0234-0067 Szymczak, Monika 2007-36532008-0234-0068 Kitchen, Chris 2007-3654 2008-0234-0069 Groves, Maurice 2007-3655 2008-0234-0070 Donaldson, Shannon 2007-3656 2008-0234-0071 White, Zuri 2007-3657 2008-0234-0072 Di Giulio, Frank 2007-3658 2008-0234-0073 Ukrainer, Melanie 2007-3659 2008-0234-0074 Klinkhammer, Amber 2007-3660 2008-0234-0075 Ashley, Jason 2007-3661 2008-0234-0076 Prochownik, Eric 2007-3662 2008-0234-0077 Mironchuk, Terry 2007-3663 2008-0234-0078 Holland, William 2007-3664 2008-0234-0079 Serre, Jason 2007-3665 2008-0234-0080 Smith, Margaret 2007-3666 2008-0234-0081 Hagen, Paula 2007-3667 2008-0234-0082 Schaefer, Jeanifer 2007-3668 2008-0234-0083 Faulkner, Catherine 2007-3669 2008-0234-0084 Maltais, Melissa 2007-3670 2008-0234-0085 - 6 - Grievor GSB Number Union File Number MacDougall, Renee 2007-3671 2008-0234-0086 O'Hara, Shannon 2007-3672 2008-0234-0087 Frankenne, Diane 2007-3673 2008-0234-0088 Guichelaar, Jennifer 2007-3674 2008-0234-0089 Guichelaar, Roger 2007-3675 2008-0234-0090 Kelly, Shannon 2007-3676 2008-0234-0091 Saunders, Terri-Leigh 2007-3677 2008-0234-0092 Petranovic, Frank 2007-3678 2008-0234-0093 Figliola, Peter 2007-3679 2008-0234-0094 Cochrane, Christopher 2007-3680 2008-0234-0095 Webb, Vicki 2007-3681 2008-0234-0096 Muller, Marlena 2007-3682 2008-0234-0097 Cabral, Kevin 2007-3683 2008-0234-0098 Ewing, Christopher P. 2007-3684 2008-0234-0099 Aguiar, Jeffery 2007-3685 2008-0234-0100 Winn, Daniel 2007-3686 2008-0234-0101 Lepine, Corinne 2007-3687 2008-0234-0102 Drzazga, John Vojtek 2007-3688 2008-0234-0103 Guhbin, Warren 2007-3689 2008-0234-0104 Cashmore, Carrie 2007-3690 2008-0234-0105 Scott, Stacey et al 2007-40022008-0234-0108 Kuruc, Diana 2007-4003 2008-0234-0109 Sabourn, Chris 2007-4004 2008-0234-0110