GSB#2011-1346, 2011-2297, 2012-1150

UNION#2011-0234-0076, 2011-0517-0030, 2011-0229-0023

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Faulkner et al)

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

Tim Mulhall Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Greg Gledhill Ministry of Government Services Centre For Employee Relations Staff Relations Officer

HEARING

October 15, November 13, 2012.

Decision

1Since the spring of 2000 the parties have been meeting regularly to address matters of mutual interest which have arisen as the result of the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services as well as the Ministry of Children and Youth Services restructuring initiatives around the Province. Through the MERC (Ministry Employment Relations Committee) a subcommittee was established to deal with issues arising from the transition process. The parties have negotiated a series of MERC agreements setting out the process for how organizational changes will unfold for Correctional and Youth Services staff and for non Correctional and non Youth Services staff.

2The parties agreed that this Board would remain seized of all issues that arise through this process and it is this agreement that provides me the jurisdiction to resolve the outstanding matters.

3Over the years as some institutions and/or youth centres decommissioned or reduced in size others were built or expanded. The parties have made efforts to identify vacancies and positions and the procedures for the filling of those positions as they become available.

4The parties have also negotiated a number of agreements that provide for the “roll-over” of fixed term staff to regular (classified) employee status.

5Hundreds of grievances have been filed as the result of the many changes that have taken place at provincial institutions. The transition subcommittee has, with the assistance of this Board, mediated numerous disputes. Others have come before this Board for disposition.

6It was determined by this Board at the outset that the process for this disputes would be somewhat more expedient. To that end, grievances are presented by way of statements of fact and succinct submissions. On occasion clarification has been sought from grievors and institutional managers at the request of the Board. This process has served the parties well. The decisions are without prejudice but attempt to provide guidance for future disputes.

7The Union filed a group grievance and a number of individual grievances on behalf of 28 Correctional Officers working at Toronto West Detention Centre, Vanier Centre for Women, Maplehurst Correctional Complex and Ontario Correctional Institute. It was alleged that the Employer had violated the Collective Agreement by failing to fill RPM positions at OCI in a timely fashion. It was suggested on the face of the grievance that the Employer acted in bad faith with ‘deceitful manipulation and/or objectionable personal/professional misconduct.”

8The grievors claim that there have been eleven vacant RPM positions at OCI since 2005 which the Employer should have filled.

9The Employer asserts that the eleven positions at issue were unfunded and therefore not “vacant.” It was noted that management has broad rights regarding the determination of the workforce including the number of positions and when those positions are to be filled. Absent a specific agreement setting out the filling of those positions, it is within the Employer’s purview to determine the filling of vacancies.

10In this instance, the Employer received funding for the eleven positions in the late summer of 2011. Shortly thereafter the parties entered into an agreement through the MERC transition subcommittee as to the number of positions to be filled and the method to be employed in so doing.

11I must agree with the Employer. Simply put, there is no violation of the Collective Agreement or any other agreement between these parties and therefore the grievances are denied.