GSB# 2002-2568

UNION# 2003-0218-0035

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Piatek)

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.

Gene Piatek was an Industrial Officer 2 temporarily assigned to work at the Burtch Correctional Centre. He grieved that he was “treated differently than other employees” and asked, by way of remedy to be “temporarily assigned to a work position within reasonable commuting distance of Burtch Correctional Centre”.

Prior to his temporary assignment Mr. Piatek received Article 20 rights and elected to take a position beyond forty kilometers. He accepted a position at TRILCOR attached to the Millbrook facility. However, he was allowed to remain at Burtch on a temporary assignment. When Burtch closed he was told to report to his permanent position at TRILCOR, Millbrook.

Mr. Piatek worked for six shifts at TRILCOR Millbrook before he notified the Employer that was ill. He has been on Short Term Disability leave for approximately five months.

As mentioned earlier, the grievor alleged that he was treated differently from other Burtch Correctional Centre employees. Indeed, there was no dispute between the parties that he was treated differently. However, that was because unlike others at Burtch Correctional Centre, the grievor was an employee of TRILCOR Millbrook with a temporary work assignment. As such, he was treated in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed to by the parties.

Accordingly, the grievance is dismissed.

Dated in Toronto, this 29^th day of October 2003.