GSB# 2002-2095
UNION# 2002-0999-0028
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
March 16, 2004.
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. The parties continued to negotiate and agree upon further conditions regarding the transition matters. MERC 3 was signed by the parties on February 25, 2002.
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 of the disputes that have arisen under the MERC Memorandum of Settlement.
When I was initially invited to hear theses transition disputes, the parties agreed that process to be followed for the determination of these matters would be virtually identical to that found in Article 22.16.2 which states:
The mediator/arbitrator shall endeavour to assist the parties to settle the grievance by mediation. If the parties are unable to settle the grievance by mediation, the mediator/arbitrator shall determine the grievance by arbitration. When determining the grievance by arbitration, the mediator/arbitrator may limit the nature and extent of the evidence and may impose such conditions as he or she considers appropriate. The mediator/arbitrator shall give a succinct decision within five (5) days after completing proceedings, unless the parties agree otherwise.
The transition committee has dealt with dozens of grievances and complaints prior to the mediation/arbitration process. There have been many other grievances and issues raised before me that I have either assisted the parties to resolve or arbitrated. However, there are still a large number that have yet to be dealt with. It is because of the vast numbers of grievances that I have decided, in accordance with my jurisdiction to so determine, that grievances are to be presented by way of each party presenting a statement of the facts with accompanying submissions. Notwithstanding that some grievors might wish to attend and provide oral evidence, to date, this process has been efficient and has allowed the parties to remain relatively current with disputes that arise from the continuing transition process.
Not surprisingly, in a few instances there has been some confusion about the certain facts or simply insufficient detail has been provided. On those occasions I have directed the parties to speak again with their principles to ascertain the facts or the rationale behind the particular outstanding matter. In each case this has been done to my satisfaction.
It is essential in this process to avoid accumulating a backlog of disputes. The task of resolving these issues in a timely fashion was, from the outset, a formidable one. With ongoing changes in Ministerial boundaries and other organizational alterations, the task has lately become larger, not smaller. It is for these reasons that the process I have outlined is appropriate in these circumstances.
During the course of our proceedings the parties agreed to put a question with certain facts before me for determination. A Correctional Officer at a facility was interested in a position at another institution. To facilitate such a move he put his name on the Job Trade registry kept by the Ministry Transition Unit. He was eager to transfer and a trade was found. Job Trades are considered at Article 10.3 of the Collective Agreement. The relevant provisions of this article are:
10.3.2 Classified employees who hold full-time or regular part-time positions are eligible to trade jobs, except for those employees who are on notice of lay-off pursuant to Article 20 (Employment Stability) of the Central Collective Agreement.
10.3.3 An employee can only trade jobs with an employee in the same category (i.e. a full-time employee can only trade jobs with another full-time employee; a regular part-time employee can only trade jobs with another regular part-time employee).
10.3.4 An employee who wishes to trade jobs with another employee must register with his or her ministry’s human resources branch and complete the required documentation, which includes the employee portfolio. The employee must also indicate the specific location or locations to which he or she is willing to relocate.
10.3.11 Job trading is voluntary. Provided an employee has not been matched with another employee’s job, he or she may withdraw at any time.
10.3.12 A job trade is not final until all four (4) parties have confirmed their agreement, in writing, i.e., the trading employees and their managers.
A job trade was found for this Correctional Officer and the paper work was completed. At some time after the trade was concluded he sought to revoke his agreement to trade jobs.
I would not be prepared to make allow such a revocation. On virtually any day in almost any workplace, it is accepted as good labour relations that deals made are deals kept. That has certainly been my experience in dealing with these parties. In my view, this general principle is particularly true in the context of the transition process. There are many employees having to change positions and workplaces due to the significant restructuring that has occurred and that continues to occur. Job changes in this context are not actions without consequences to others. For example, when one employee elects to take a VEO there is often an impact on other employees. The second employee might elect an employment option that will have significant meaning to a third employee and so on.
It is no doubt for this reason that the parties agreed to provisions of Article 10.3. It is certainly for these reasons that I dismiss any such grievance.
Dated in Toronto this 6th day of July, 2004.