HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-1722.Caryk et al.10-11-16 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#2006-1722
UNION#2006-0248-0050
$GGLWLRQDO)LOHV/LVWHGLQ³$SSHQGL[$´
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Caryk et al)
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
HEARINGOctober 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 application of the collective agreement
GXULQJWKH³ILUVWSKDVHRIWKH0LQLVWU\¶VWUDQVLWLRQ´2QHPHPRUDQGXPGDWHG0D\
KHUHLQDIWHUUHIHUUHGWRDV³0(5&´ 0LQLVWU\(PSOR\PHQW5HODWLRQV
Committee)) outlined conditions for the correctional officers while the second,
dated July 19, 2001 (hereinafter referreGWRDV³0(5&´
SURYLGHGIRUWKHQRQ
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 ZHUH³ZLWKRXWSUHMXGLFHRU
precedent to positions either the union or the employer may take on the same issues
LQIXWXUHGLVFXVVLRQV´WKHSDUWLHVUHFRJQL]HG 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
- 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 these 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
- 4 -
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]During our recent session held to discuss the transition grievances the Union was
unprepared to discuss certain grievances.When asked why particulars had not been
gathered the Union indicated that efforts had been made to do so without success.
[10]It is not acceptable that the facts and issues arising from grievances are not made
known in a timely fashion in this process. Accordingly, I am ordering the Union to
provide particulars regarding the grievances set out at Appendix A to the Employer
within sixty day of the date of this decision.
th
Dated at Toronto this 16 day of November 2010.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair
- 5 -
Appendix A
Last Name First Name GSB#OPSEU #