GSB# 2001-0548

UNION# 01F484

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Johnson)

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

August 12, 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 one of the numerous decisions dealing with disputes under the MERC Memoranda of Agreement.

Stephen Johnson was a Correctional Officer at Burtch Correctional Centre. He grieved that he was “wrongfully denied access to compete in the competition at Sprucedale Youth Centre”.

In the MERC 1 Memorandum of Agreement at Appendix D it was stated that the area of search for Sprucedale positons were Wellington, Waterloo and Sprucedale. It further stated:

The area of search will be restricted to classified and unclassified employees working at or permanently residing within 40 kms. of the worksite and classified and unclassified employees who are permanently employed at the institutions listed in this appendix.

No applicant will be screen out or denied a position due to lack of ministry endorsed training in young offender services.

Burtch Correctional Centre is within forty kilometers of Sprucedale. Mr. Johnson claimed that because he was working at an institution which was within forty kilometers of Sprucedale he was entitled to a position.

The was no dispute between the parties that the above provision found in the Memorandum of Settlement means that in order for employees to be entitled to the listed positions employees either had to be at Sprucedale or residing within forty kilometers of Sprucedale. It is not sufficient that Burtch Correctional Centre was within forty kilometers of Sprucedale.

Accordingly, the grievance must be denied.

Dated in Toronto this 28^th day of October 2003.