HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-2197.Pillai.10-11-03 Decision
Commission de
Crown Employees
Grievance
UqJOHPHQWGHV
Settlement Board
griefs
GHVHPSOR\pVGHOD
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
7pO
7pOpF
GSB#2009-2197
UNION#2009-0728-0001
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Pillai)
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 Government Services
Employee Relations Division
Staff Relations Officer
HEARINGJune 4, 2010, October 26, 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 appliFDWLRQRIWKHFROOHFWLYHDJUHHPHQWGXULQJWKH³ILUVWSKDVH
RIWKH0LQLVWU\¶VWUDQVLWLRQ´2QHPHPRUDndum, dated May 3, 2000 (hereinafter referred
WRDV³0(5&´ 0LQLVWU\(PSOR\PHQW5HODWLRQV&RPPLWWHH
RXWOLQHGFRQGLWLRQVIRU
the correctional officers while the second, dated July 19, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as
³0(5&´
SURYLGHGIRUWKHQRQFRUUHFWLRQDORIILcer 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 ³ZLWKRXWSUHMXGLFHRU
precedent to positions either the union or the employer may take on the same issues in
IXWXUHGLVFXVVLRQV´WKHSDUWLHVUHFRJQL]HGthat 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
- 3 -
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.
[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.
- 4 -
[9]Ms. Olivia Pillai was a Correctional Officer at the Hamilton Wentworth Detention
Centre. In the spring of 2008 she requested and received a six month leave of absence to
allow her to pursue work with the Ministry of Natural Resources. In May of 2008 she
was told by her Supervisor in MNR that in order for her to continue to perform her duties
as an unclassified MNR employee she would have to terminate her employment with the
Ministry of Corrections. She reluctantly agreed to do so.
[10]Approximately two weeks after she terminated her employment with Hamilton
Wentworth Detention Centre other officers were offered ³EX\RXWSDFNDJHV´6KH
grieved that she should have been given a leave of absence without pay from the Ministry
of Natural Resources so that she could have been entitled to a package.
[11]After considering the facts and submissions of this matter I am of the view that
there has been no violation of the Collective Agreement.
rd
Dated at Toronto this 3 day of November 2010.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair