<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
<!--mc:cls:cover-line-->
Before
<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Holwell et al.)
<!--mc:close:case-cover-->
## 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 29, 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.
Ms. Pauline Holwell is one of sixteen Correctional Officers at Metro Toronto West Detention Centre who filed a group grievance. Those Correctional Officers alleged that the Employer failed to follow the seniority provisions of the MERC agreement regarding the transfer of inmates and staff to the Women’s Institution in Milton. By way of remedy she asked to be transferred forthwith and paid travel time and mileage retroactive to January 20, 2003. This grievance was a group grievance and fifteen other correctional officers were included.
Ms. Holwell was offered a position at the Women’s Institution in Milton and she accepted. It was subsequently determined to close Vanier Centre for Women in Brampton and a decision was made to offer those employees, some of whom were junior to the grievor, positions at the Women’s Institution in Milton.
MERC 1 Memorandum of Agreement provides for these positions to be offered to employees at specified institutions. Once filled, the remaining positions were offered to the most senior of those remaining who did not yet have an assignment.
Upon a review of the Memorandum I can find nothing regarding that would have obliged the Employer to assign the grievors to begin work at the Women’s Institution in Milton prior to those employees from Vanier Centre for Women at Brampton. Accordingly, the grievances are denied.
Dated in Toronto this 31<sup>st</sup> day of October, 2003.
minicounsel