GSB# 2000-0927, 2000-1475, 2000-1476, 2000-1477, 2000-1632, 2000-1633, 2001-0027

UNION# 00E680, 01A080, 01A081, 01A082, 01A206, 01A207, 01A379

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Hughes et al.)

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 Ontario Public Service Employees Union

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Greg Gledhill Staff Relations Officer Ministry of Public Safety and Security

HEARING

September 5, 2003.

DECISION

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. This is a further decision dealing with some of the disputes that have arisen under the MERC Memoranda of Settlement.

Similar to the process utilized for earlier decisions regarding these transition matters, the parties attended at an arbitration hearing and provided facts and submissions concerning the outstanding issues. In large measure the facts were in agreement and it was not necessary to call evidence.

Grievances were filed by C. Culver, S. Ireland, J. Misener, M. Silva, B. Zdunich as well as two Group Grievances. Each of these grievances were filed either at the end of 2000 or in the first two months of 2001. While the statement of the grievance varies somewhat, generally speaking each allege that the Ministry has, by electing to close its facility at Burtch Correctional Centre, discriminated against the employees because of anti-union animus. It was also asserted by the grievors that their workplace was chosen for closure because of perceived attendance problems within the Centre.

There was a lengthy decision by Vice Chair Richard Brown determining various matters regarding the RFP process at Burtch Correctional Centre. It is not in the interest of the parties to revisit any or those issues. It is sufficient for me to indicate that assertions of discrimination were disposed of in that decision.

Accordingly, the grievances must be dismissed.

Dated in Toronto this 29th day of October 2003.