HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-2803.Tauvette.11-02-08 Decision
Commission de
Crown Employees
Grievance
UqJOHPHQWGHVJULHIV
Settlement Board
GHVHPSOR\pVGHOD
Couronne
Suite 600 Bureau 600
180 Dundas St. West 180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 7pO
Fax (416) 326-1396 7pOpF
GSB#2009-2803
UNION#2010-0678-0001
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Tauvette)
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
Centre for Employee Relations
Staff Relations Officer
HEARINGJanuary 24, 2011.
- 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
FROOHFWLYHDJUHHPHQWGXULQJWKH³ILUVWSKDVHRIWKH0LQLVWU\¶VWUDQVLWLRQ´2QHPHPRUDQGXP
dated May 3, 2000 (hereinafter reIHUUHGWRDV³0(5&´0LQistry Employment Relations
Committee)) outlined conditions for the correctional officers while the second, dated July 19,
KHUHLQDIWHUUHIHUUHGWRDV³0(5&´
SURYLGHGIRUWKHQRQFRUUectional 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 VHWWOHPHQWVZHUH³ZLWKRXWSUHMXGLFHRU
precedent to positions either the union or the employer may take on the same issues in future
GLVFXVVLRQV´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 institutions, it is not surprising that a number
- 3 -
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
- 4 -
larger, not smaller. It is for these reasons that the process I have outlined is appropriate in these
circumstances.
[9]Danielle Tauvette was an unclassified Correctional Officer at Algoma Treatment and
Remand Centre at the time she filed a grievance alleging that the Employer violated various
articles of the Collective Agreement by failiQJWRRIIHUKHUD³UROORYHU´RSSRUWXQLW\
[10]The Employer and the Union agreed that there were a number of Correctional Officer
positions at ATRC for roll-over. Ultimately the parties agreed that seven officers would be
rolled over and an eighth Correctional Officer position would be filled by way of lateral transfer.
[11]The grievor had sixty four hours less than the officer who received the seventh roll over
position. While I appreciate that the grievor might be somewhat frustrated given that she has
been working as an unclassified officer for a number of years, there is no violation of the
Collective Agreement or any other document.
[12]Accordingly, the grievance is dismissed.
th
Dated at Toronto this 8 day of February 2011.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair