Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Public Safety and Security), 2003 CanLII 52874

GSB# 0777/00, 0841/00

UNION# 00U093, 00U073

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Union Grievance)

Grievor

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Public Safety and Security)

Employer

BEFORE

Felicity D. Briggs

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Scott Andrews, Grievance Officer & Barry Scanlon, MERC Co-Chair Ontario Public Service Employees Union

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Linda Elliott Senior Transition Specialist Ministry of Public Safety and Security

HEARING

July 11, 2003.

DECISION

Part A

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.

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.

It is this agreement that provides me with the jurisdiction to resolve the outstanding matters.

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.

In accordance with the MERC Memorandum of Agreement a number of male Correctional Officers were assigned to work at the Maplehurst Correctional Centre in approximately May of 2002. Their letters of assignment specifically listed their new superintendent as Mr. Mousley. At the same time other Correctional Officers were assigned to Maplehurst Complex and had Mr. Mousley as well as Ms. Cybulski listed as Superintendent. Those male Correctional Officers who were assigned to both superintendents were ordered to report to the female institution effective July 7, 2003.

In that regard, the parties have agreed to the following:

1. Correctional Officers whose assignment letters indicated that they were to report to Maplehurst Complex and also indicated of the name of two superintendents were properly assigned in Vanier Milton in accordance with Article 20.

2. Correctional Officers who were temporarily assigned to the Maplehurst Male Complex are entitled to the provisions of Article 13 and Article 14 of the collective agreement for the period of time of their temporary assignments up to and including July 13, 2003 or until the date that they ceased being an employee at Vanier Milton whichever occurs first.

3. The Correctional Officers referred to in paragraph 2 above shall report to Vanier Milton effective July 21, 2003.

4. Felicity D. Briggs is to remain seized in the event of any implementation problems.

Part B

On June 3, 2003 the parties signed a Memorandum of Agreement/Settlement concerning the application of the Collective Agreement with respect to the process for staff related to the implementation of the Infrastructure Renewal Plan activities of the Ministry as the impact on the Central Region Institutions.

In that Memorandum, the parties agreed to the following at paragraph 2 of Part 2 – Movement of Assigned Correctional Officers from GATU, and Mimico Correctional Centre to Toronto West Detention Centre:

The parties agree that the classified Correctional Officers from Mimico assigned to TWDC will be scheduled for two weeks training at TWDC. Half (50%) of this group of classified Correctional Officers will begin their training June 16, 2003, and the other half (50%) will begin their training July 2, 2003. where more than half of the Correctional officers are interested in the first stage of training, they will be assigned on the basis of seniority. Where there is an insufficient number of eligible classified Correctional Officers opting to attend the first stage of training, the selection will be made in reversed order of seniority.

As provided above, half of the group of Correctional Officers reported for, and received, training on June 16, 2003. However, for reasons that need not be set out, there were problems with the second training date. As a result, I am issuing the following order:

1. I find that the Employer has violated Part 2, section 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement/Settlement, Greater Toronto Area Central Region dated June 3, 2003.

2. Correctional Officers from Mimico Correctional Centre who were scheduled to begin their training at TWDC on July 2, 2003 but did not begin their training at TWDC on that date may begin training on July 14, 2003, if they agree.

3. The parties are ordered to meet within ten days of the issuance of this order to negotiate another date or dates for the training of those Mimico Correctional Officers who were scheduled to begin training July 2, 2003 at TWDC but were not trained on that date and the Correctional Officers who were scheduled to begin training on July 14, 2003 but were unable to attend.

4. Correctional Officers noted in paragraph 2 above who can demonstrate losses or costs resulting from the above violation shall submit claims to the MERC implementation committee for disposition.

5. Felicity D. Briggs remains seized of any difficulties arising from this order.

Dated in Toronto this 17th day of July, 2003.