GSB# 2001-1852, 2002-2452, 2002-2753, 2002-2815
UNION# 02C196, 2003-0218-0023, 2003-0218-0024, 2003-0218-0025, 2003-0218-0026, 2003-0218-0020, 2003-0218-0021, 2003-0218-0022
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Quinn 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 another decision that considers 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 A. Conners, P. Muth, S. Quinn & C. Barnard, all of whom worked at Burtch Correctional Centre. Each of these grievances all arise from the same facts. One grievance alleged:
I grieve the process by which the RFP was administered in that Burtch CC staff who have retired notified management and HR of their intention to bridge to retirement or who have chosen the voluntary exit option were not removed from the numbers of staff at Burtch CC reassigned by bumping and later transfer prior to the RFP being revisited with respect to lateral transfer request filed as of December 5, 2002.
In accordance with the agreement of the parties, there was a common surplus date. If employees left prior to the common surplus date any resulting Article 20 positions were filled on the basis of seniority. Some individuals left after they had received their Article 20 entitlements on the common surplus date and those positions were not filled. It is these positions that the grievors lay claim to.
In my view, there is nothing in the agreement that would oblige the Employer to fill the Article 20 positions that become vacant after the common surplus date.
Accordingly, the grievances are denied.
Dated in Toronto this 30th day of October 2003.