Grievance Settlement Board
GSB# 2002-0163
UNION# 2002-0999-0005 [02U114]
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Union Grievance)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
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 Community Safety and Correctional Services
HEARING
September 22, 2004.
Decision
In September of 1996 the Ministry of Correctional Services notified the Union and employees at a number of provincial 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 outlined conditions for the Correctional Officers while the second, dated July 19, 2001 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. The parties continued to negotiate and agree upon further conditions regarding the transitions matters. MERC 3 was signed by the parties on February 25, 2003.
As part of the overall transition process significant organizational and structural changes at Maplehurst Complex the Employer announced a new staffing model. Shortly thereafter the Union filed a policy grievance alleging a violation of Articles 2, 6, 9 and 20 with respect to the Correctional Officer positions at Maplehurst Complex.
In an effort to resolve their differences the parties agreed to the following on December 4, 2003:
Re Union Policy Grievance application regarding classified Correctional Officer positions, posts, health and safety with respect to shift coverage to shift coverage (sic) at Maplehurst:
The Employer shall complete a classified correctional officer workload analysis at Maplehurst Complex no later than March 31, 2004. The Employer shall provide the results of the workload analysis an explanation of how it was arrived at no later than March 31, 2004, to the MERC Implementation Committee.
The Parties agree to meet at least three (3) times between March 31, 2004 and April 30, 2004 to attempt to resolve outstanding issues related to the grievance specific to Correctional Officer issues at Maplehurst Complex.
The Parties agree to schedule at least five (5) arbitration dates with Vice-Chair F. Briggs from May 15, 2004 forward to be utilized if negotiation process (sic) fails to resolve the outstanding issues.
The Parties agree that the current Correctional Officer CWW Agreements in place at Maplehurst Complex shall remain in place until at least October 4, 2004, unless the parties mutually agree to do otherwise.
In accordance with the above Memorandum of Settlement the workload analysis was completed and provided to the Union. Despite negotiations undertaken in good faith, the parties were not able to resolve all of the outstanding matters regarding the appropriate Correctional Officer staffing complement at Maplehurst. It is through this unique and agreed upon process that the issue came before me for determination. This decision deals with the dispute regarding the Correctional Officer positions at Maplehurst Complex.
The parties were not significantly disparate in their views of the appropriate resolution of this matter. I heard evidence regarding the nature of the operation, how the operational needs have changed in the last five years, the workload analysis, the Employer's view of the appropriate staffing model and the Union's concerns in that regard. It is not my intention to review that evidence in any detail. It is sufficient to say that any decision rendered herein is peculiar to these facts and will therefore have no application to any other institution. Further, this decision sets out the appropriate staffing complement for Maplehurst Complex as of the date of this decision as the result of this process.
I begin by stating that I find there has been no violation of Articles 2, 6 or 20. Further, in my view I need not comment on any alleged violation of Article 9 because the parties have agreed to this process.
Based on the evidence and submissions of the parties, I have determined that there should be two hundred and twenty three (223) classified Correctional Officer positions for the Maplehurst Complex plus ten (10) classified community escort positions.
I remit the issue of the staffing of the crib back to the parties to resolve. Further, I remit the scheduling of the Maplehurst Complex staff back to the parties for resolution.
I remain seized in the event of implementation difficulties or in the event the parties have further issues as considered in the December 4, 2003 Memorandum of Agreement.
Dated in Toronto, this 27th day of September, 2004.