HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-0692.Pilch.12-01-17 Decision
Crown Employees
rieva
nce Settlement
oard
1Z8
l. (416) 326-1388
x (416) 326-1396
t des griefs
es employés de la
t
Z8
l. : (416) 326-1388
léc. : (416) 326-1396
UNION#2010-0368-0026
IN THE MATTER OF
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
ETWEEN
G
B
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G
Te
Fa
Commission de
règlemen
d
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Oues
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1
Té
Té
GSB#2010-0692
AN ARBITRATION
Under
B
Ontario Public Sployees Union
(Pilch) Union
- and -
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
ervice Em
The Crown in Right of Ontario
BEFORE Felicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
ice Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Stephen Giles
O
G
ntario Public Serv
rievance Officer
s
s
Greg Gledhill
Ministry of Government Service
C
E
entre for Employee Relation
mployee Relations Advisor
HEARING November 21, 2011 & January 9, 2012.
- 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.
[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
- 3 -
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] Over a number of years the transition committee has faced various and continuing
organizational changes within this Ministry and has worked tirelessly to attempt to reduce
or at least significantly limit the impact on members of the bargaining unit. Recently
further jail closures have been announced and the committee is making every effort to
resolve disputes in a timely fashion.
[10] Joseph Pilch is a fixed term Correctional Officer at Central East Correctional Centre. He
grieves that he should have been rolled over in the most recent round of rollovers.
[11] Seventeen officers were rolled over at CECC in December of 2009. Mr. Pilch was the
eighteenth officer on the list. He claims that another officer ought not to have been rolled
over because some of his hours were spent as an acting manager thereby allowing him to
obtain classified status.
[12] The other Correctional Officer was working under the STAP program and according to
that program, bargaining unit members continue to be in the bargaining unit while
performing temporary managerial work. Accordingly, all of her hours were properly
counted. Additionally, according to the Employer’s documentation, she met all of the
other conditions for rollovers. Therefore, the grievor was not improperly bypassed in the
rollover process.
[13] The grievance is denied.
Dated at Toronto this 17th day of January 2012.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair