Felicity D. Briggs

The grievor, a classified correctional officer, filed eight grievances alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by denying him temporary assignments and lateral transfers closer to his home after he had accepted a lateral transfer to the Sudbury Jail.

The Union argued the grievor was constructively disciplined and suffered stress due to management's actions.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that because the grievor had accepted a lateral transfer to an institution that was not closing, he had no further surplussing rights under the collective agreement.

The Union filed grievances alleging the Employer violated the MERC 1 Memorandum of Settlement when it ordered Correctional Officers to take Young Offender training at the Burtch Correctional Centre after all inmates had been removed.

The Union sought payment for mileage and travel time.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievances, finding that under the Memorandum, employees were only to remain at their current work site until the institution no longer housed inmates.

Once the inmates were moved out, the grievors were entitled to be paid mileage and travel time costs for the days they were ordered to attend the facility.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer at Burtch Correctional Centre, alleged he was wrongfully denied access to compete for a position at Sprucedale Youth Centre during a Ministry restructuring.

The Memorandum of Settlement restricted the area of search to employees working at or permanently residing within 40 km of the worksite, and employees permanently employed at listed institutions.

The grievor claimed eligibility because his workplace was within 40 km of Sprucedale.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the parties agreed the provision required employees to either work at Sprucedale or reside within 40 km of it, which the grievor did not.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer alleging that the transition team conspired to mislead employees with Article 18 rights by supplying an incomplete list of vacancies from provincial institutions and failing to provide it in a timely manner.

The grievor claimed this allowed other employees to take vacancies that would have been available to him.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no evidence of a conspiracy and noted that the employer was not obliged under the Memorandum of Settlement or the collective agreement to provide the lateral transfer lists.

The grievance was denied.

The grievor, an unclassified cook at the Owen Sound Jail, filed a grievance alleging the Employer failed to convert her to full-time classified service.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the hours she worked replacing an employee on sick leave were not eligible for conversion under the collective agreement.

While the hours worked replacing a retired cook were eligible, they were insufficient in number to bring about a conversion.

The grievance was denied.

The parties sought determination of three questions regarding the calculation of seniority for unclassified correctional officers under a Memorandum of Agreement.

The Vice-Chair held that overtime hours do not count toward straight-time hours for seniority purposes.

Where an employee worked 40 hours but 8 were paid at overtime rates, only 32 hours count toward seniority.

For a compressed work week where 420 hours were worked and compensated at the regular rate over 10 weeks, all 420 hours count toward unclassified seniority.

The union filed grievances regarding the restructuring and closure of provincial correctional institutions.

The parties entered into Memoranda of Settlement to manage the transition and agreed that the Vice-Chair would remain seized of implementation disputes.

A dispute arose concerning the assignment of correctional officers to the Maplehurst Complex and Vanier Milton, which the parties resolved by agreement.

A second dispute arose regarding the employer's failure to provide scheduled training to reassigned correctional officers at the Toronto West Detention Centre.

The Vice-Chair found that the employer violated the Memorandum of Agreement, ordered new training dates to be scheduled, and directed that affected officers could submit claims for resulting losses.

The union filed several grievances on behalf of correctional officers arising from the restructuring and closure of provincial correctional facilities.

The grievances alleged violations of the collective agreement regarding job trades, travel time and mileage allowances, and notice of technological change.

The arbitrator dismissed all grievances, finding that the grievors were permanently redeployed rather than temporarily assigned, that delayed facility closures did not trigger allowance payments, and that a facility closure did not constitute a technological change under the collective agreement.

The parties sought resolution of implementation disputes arising from two Memoranda of Agreement regarding the filling of classified Correctional Officer positions.

The parties agreed on how to calculate straight-time hours for unclassified employees during authorized leaves and strike periods.

The sole unresolved issue was whether an employee's prior unclassified and classified service counts towards unclassified seniority if they resigned before rejoining as an unclassified employee.

The Vice-Chair held that the prior service does not count, as resignation has contractual consequences that break seniority.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a project soils engineer claiming entitlement to travel credits for time spent travelling outside normal working hours.

The employer argued that travel and road monitoring were inherent parts of the grievor's work, relying on a previous decision involving a different employee.

The arbitrator found that the grievor's duties differed from the previous case, as he was not required to monitor pavement conditions while driving at highway speeds.

The arbitrator concluded that travel was not an inherent part of the grievor's work and allowed the grievance, entitling him to travel credits.

Twenty-eight unclassified correctional officers filed grievances alleging they were performing the full range of duties of the Correctional Officer 2 classification and should be paid the equivalent wage rate.

The employer raised preliminary objections that the grievances were inarbitrable classification matters and that they had been resolved by a prior Memorandum of Settlement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed both objections, finding the grievances were about wage equivalency rather than classification, and that the Memorandum explicitly preserved the right to litigate previously filed grievances.

As the employer conceded the grievors were performing the full range of CO2 duties, the grievances were upheld.

The union challenged the employer's calculation of the continuous service dates for two employees following their conversion from unclassified to classified status pursuant to settlement agreements.

For the first employee, the union argued his prior fee-for-service work should be included in his continuous service date based on a 1990 tribunal decision and subsequent agreements.

For the second employee, the union argued her continuous service date should reflect a 'latent application' of a return-to-work protocol regarding strike time and match the treatment of another group of employees.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed both claims, finding the employer correctly calculated the continuous service dates in accordance with the collective agreement and the specific terms of the settlement agreements, and that the employees could not retroactively claim benefits they were not entitled to when unclassified.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Correctional Services) engaged in a grievance arbitration regarding the conversion of unclassified correctional officers to classified status under a Memorandum of Settlement.

Following a previous award clarifying conversion rules, the Implementation Committee attempted to resolve outstanding grievances.

At the hearing, one grievance was withdrawn, two grievors were converted by agreement, one case was reserved for reconsideration, and one grievor was found ineligible for conversion.

The Association filed grievances on behalf of several engineers regarding eligibility for travel credits under Article 13 of the collective agreement.

The Employer argued that travel was an inherent part of the engineers' positions, making them ineligible for the credits.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that travel was not an inherent part of the work for most of the grievors, as they were merely transporting themselves to and from work sites without discharging actual job responsibilities during the travel.

The grievances were allowed, with specific determinations made for each grievor based on whether they performed actual work while travelling.

The union filed a grievance alleging that a letter dated November 4, 1993, and a subsequent workload arrangement constituted discipline.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the letter was not disciplinary and was never placed in the grievor's personnel file, meaning the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed, finding the letter contained no common elements of discipline and was not placed in the file.

The Board also found it lacked jurisdiction to determine the workload issue as there was no allegation of harassment on the face of the grievance.

The grievance was dismissed.