GSB# 2001-0545, 2002-2480, 2002-2496, 2003-0798, 2003-1897, 2003-1898, 2003-2327, 2003-2328, 2003-2927, 2003-3436, 2004-0741, 2004-0742, 2004-1337, 2004-1466, 2004-1467, 2004-1472, 2004-1547, 2004-1817, 2004-1827, 2004-1829, 2004-1986, 2004-2133, 2004-2134, 2004-2315, 2004-2468, 2004-2471, 2004-2472, 2004-2510, 2004-3110, 2004-3111, 2004-3114, 2004-3115
UNION# 2001-0517-0099, 2002-0517-0069, 2002-0517-0066, 2003-0517-0026, 2003-0517-0044, 2003-0517-0045, 2003-0517-0048, 2003-0517-0049, 2003-0517-0059, 2003-0517-0065, 2004-0517-0034, 2004-0517-0035, 2004-0517-0042, 2004-0517-0048, 2004-0517-0049, 2004-0517-0054, 2004-0517-0060, 2004-0517-0064, 2004-0517-0074, 2004-0517-0076, 2004-0517-0079, 2004-0517-0081, 2004-0517-0082, 2004-0517-0083, 2004-0517-0084, 2004-0517-0087, 2004-0517-0088, 2004-0517-0095, 2004-0517-0100, 2004-0517-0101, 2004-0517-0102, 2004-0517-0103
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Alford et al.)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFORE
Deborah Leighton
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
CONFERENCE CALLS
September 12 & 15, 2005.
Decision
This is a decision on a motion for a compliance order heard by a conference call on September 12 and September 15, 2005. I adjourned September 12 and resumed September 15 in order to allow the employer and union representatives to seek clarification from their clients on several points and to permit them to prepare whatever documentation they considered necessary for me to decide this motion.
The parties agreed by Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), signed January 19, 2005, as follows:
The parties agree to meet within thirty (30) days of the signing of this agreement in regards to developing and implementing a six (6) month pilot project for the purpose of calling in staff for open shifts. The parties further agree to review the project at the completion for possible extension. Management agrees to invite the Union President and the Superintendent from the Toronto Jail.
Following the conclusion of the consultation process, the terms of the pilot project will be clarified in writing as soon as possible. The parties agree that the Employer shall determine the appropriate posts, and the parties will come to a mutual agreement in regards to the employees that will be assigned the work.
Upon the signing of this agreement for the above noted pilot project, the parties agree to continue to resolve the overtime grievances filed prior to January 19, 2005, relying on the existing records.
Should the parties encounter any difficulties in regards to the implementation of this memorandum; the parties agree to conduct a teleconference with Vice-Chair Leighton who shall remain seized with this agreement.
The employer’s initial submission was that the parties had agreed on another institution for the pilot project identified in paragraphs 1 and 2. The union disagreed, but acknowledged that the purpose of this motion was to seek an order from the board requiring that the employer comply with paragraph 3 within 30 days. The employer then argued that paragraph 3 was only to be done upon completion of paragraphs 1 and 2.
It was the union’s submission that they have been pursuing implementation of this memorandum since it was signed, and they seek an order that paragraph 3 will be satisfied within thirty days of this order. In the union’s estimation it would take two to three days for the parties to go through approximately forty-five overtime grievances in a process that the parties began during the “med-arbs” at MWDC last January.
The employer submitted that the human resources to implement the MOU are not available and will not be available until after a workload review is completed at the end of October as required by Minutes of Settlement signed in July 2005
Decision
Having carefully considered the submissions and the documentation advanced by the parties, I am not persuaded that the implementation of paragraph 3 is conditional on the matters addressed in paragraphs 1 and 2 being completed. Indeed, the best understanding of the language of paragraph 3 requires that parties undertake to resolve overtime grievances filed prior to January 19, 2005 upon signing the Memorandum of Understanding itself. This condition was met on January 19, 2005. There is no suggestion in paragraph three that its provisions do not take effect until there is a resolution of the matters addressed in Paragraphs 1 and 2. Moreover, there is no suggestion in paragraphs 1 and 2 that they are to be undertaken or completed before paragraph 3.
Further, I find that the employer has an obligation to fulfill these minutes that cannot be “excused” by signing a later MOS. The obligation has existed since January 19, 2005. The integrity of the “med-arb” process, and indeed labour relations between the parties, requires that minutes of settlement be implemented in a timely manner.
The language of paragraph 3 provides that the parties agree to continue to resolve the overtime grievances. Since this has not been done, the union requests an order that the employer be required to resume the process of reviewing the overtime grievances and finish that review within 30 days. I have decided to grant this motion, but I am giving the employer an additional two weeks to complete the process, until November 3, 2005.
Order
Thus for the reasons noted above the employer is hereby ordered to satisfy the requirements of paragraph 3 by November 3, 2005, by making the appropriate management employees available with the information (and documents) to sit down with the union officials to continue the process that was begun at the last “med-arbs” at MWDC to review the approximately 32 outstanding overtime grievances (as of January 19, 2005). I shall remain seized in the event that there are any difficulties with the implementation of this order.
Dated at Toronto this 22nd day of September, 2005