Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-2760.Hodgson.12-04-02 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#2011-0224-0006 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 Commission de règlemen d Couronne Bureau 600 180, rue Dundas Oues Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1 Té Té Fa GSB#2011-2760 AN ARBITRATION Under B Ontario Public (Hodgson) Union - and - (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer Service Employees Union The Crown in Right of Ontario BEFORE Felicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION ice Employees Union FOR THE EMPLOYER Tim Mulhall 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 January 9 and March 12, 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 - [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 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 - 4 - 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. - 5 - [10] Ms. Sarah Hodgson was an unclassified Correctional Officer at the Owen Sound Jail. She filed a grievance that alleged a violation of the Collective Agreement including Article 20. [11] It was Ms. Hodgson’s view that at the time of planning for the decommissioning of the Owen Sound Jail, she was offered a classified position at the Toronto Intermittent Centre. She claims that this offer made by Ms. Linda Elliott, Coordinator Transition Unit was withdrawn and instead she was told to report to the Toronto Jail. [12] According to the Employer, the grievor was offered classified status if she agreed to move to the Toronto Jail upon the closure of Owen Sound Jail. She declined. However, this offer was re-issued and the grievor did sign a document agreeing to go to the Toronto Jail. As a result of that agreement she was given classified status while still at the Owen Sound Jail where she remained until its closure. [13] Documents provided show that on July 14, 2011 the grievor was informed of various options that she had to consider regarding her future employment. In that letter it was made clear that seven fixed term employees then at the Owen Sound Jail would get rolled over at the Toronto Jail and would be eligible for an economic adjustment of $2,000. The grievor signed the document indicating that she would like to be considered for a rollover into classified service at the Toronto Jail on July 27, 2011. Ms. Hodgson also filled out a lateral transfer request for TIC. - 6 - [14] On August 8, 2011 Ms. Hodgson was notified that she had been assigned to regular (classified) service at the Toronto Jail and that her assignment was effective on August 22, 2011. However, she was to remain at the Owen Sound Jail until she was given a start date. [15] On August 27, 2011 the grievor filled out a lateral transfer request form asked that her home position of Correctional officer at the Toronto Jail be transferred to the Toronto Intermittent Centre. [16] On September 13, 2011 the grievor was notified that her later transfer request was approved. She was informed that the effective date had yet to be determined. [17] Ms. Hodgson, in her written statement said that shortly after her original request was signed regarding work at TIC in the summer of 2011 she was told that the TIC positions would be posted and open to applications from around the Province. Therefore, she would likely not get the position. For this reasons she also submitted a lateral transfer form to work at Central East Correctional Centre. Prior to being accepted at TIC she had decided to go back to school and had signed a year long lease and moved to Peterborough for that purpose. [18] By way of remedy, Ms. Hodgson wants to be able to take Article 20 entitlements. To be clear, she wants to be laid off and paid sixteen weeks pay. - 7 - [19] There is nothing in the documents provided (which included a considerable email stream) that reveals the grievor was mislead. Further, she applied for and received a position at TIC. [20] It appears that the grievor changed her plans and now is attempting to turn back the clock and opt for rights under Article 20. There is no right to do so under the Collective Agreement or any other agreement made by these parties. [21] The grievor was given options and she made an election. While it is unfortunate that changes in her life have caused her to regret earlier decisions, that is insufficient for this Board to award her the remedy she seeks. [22] For those reasons, the grievance is denied. Dated at Toronto this 2nd day of April 2012. Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair