GSB# 2003-3003

UNION# 2003-0359-0054

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Romagnuolo)

Union

• 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

Lucy Neal Senior Staff Relations Officer Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services

HEARING

January 18, 2006.

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 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.

Kim Romagnuolo is a Rehabilitation Officer at the Central East Correctional Centre and she filed a grievance on October 7, 2003 that stated:

I feel the employer violated the collective agreement by 1) MERC 3 when the allotted number of employees changed from Whitby Jail to CECC thus did not elect other who should have been eligible for transition; 2) breach of verbal contract – Michael Stephenson made a verbal agreement that all employees from Whitby Jail who wanted to go to CECC would; 3) Appendix 13 – Relocation of operation outside 40 km by relocating from Whitby to CECC; 4) Article 2.1 Management’s Right to manage. I could have been directly assigned to CECC; 5) Article 20 – Employment stability.

By way of remedy the grievor asked for relocation costs, monies for pain and suffering, reinstatement of sick days taken due to stress caused by the improper placement and other related costs.

The grievor, in her statement referred to an earlier decision of this Board flowing from the grievance of Rob Lake. While her personal facts are different, the allegations are virtually identical. While I have some sympathy for the situation the grievor found herself in, I must dismiss this matter. I disposed of the allegations regarding the meeting attended by Mr. Michael Stephenson in the Lake decision and it is not necessary to be repetitious. However, those comments apply equally to this matter.

Further, as in the Lake matter, it was evident from the letters sent to this grievor as well as to other employees how the transition process would unfold. In particular, in September of 2003 the grievor received various options regarding her employment. On October 22, 2002 the grievor was informed that the Employer and the Union agreed that all classified employees currently employed at the Whitby Jail would be provided an opportunity to accept or decline a position at CECC on the basis of seniority. She was informed that all “employees assigned to a position at the Central East Correctional Centre as a result of this exercise will remain at their respective current work site until the effective date of the relocation of the employee is determined by the Employer”. The grievor requested such an assignment. She was told in a letter dated November 5, 2002 that she had insufficient seniority to attain such a position. Accordingly she was informed that she would have certain rights under Article 20 of the Collective Agreement. In January 2003 she was informed that the Jail would be decommissioning and that she had Article 20 rights. She elected redeployment rights on April 22, 2003. On May 1, 2003 she was told that she had a Correctional Officer position at the Metro Toronto East Detention Centre and was to report to work as of May 5, 2003.

I have reviewed the Employer’s documentation as well as the grievor’s written statement. Simply put, there is no violation of the Collective Agreement or any MERC Agreement. Accordingly, the grievance is denied.

Dated in Toronto this 27th day of April, 2006.