GSB#2002-2419

UNION#2002-0263-0036

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Stewart 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

Nick Mustari and Gregg Gray Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officers

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Greg Gledhill Treasury Board Secretariat Centre for Employee Relations Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING

March 9, June 9, 2015

Decision

1In 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 Memorandum 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 principals and settled all of the grievances identified in the related MERC appendices, filed up to that point in time.

2While 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.

3It is this agreement that provides me with the jurisdiction to resolve the outstanding matters.

4Both 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.

5When 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.

6The 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.

7Not 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.

8It 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.

9Wendy Stewart and three other female Correctional Officers have filed a grievance that alleged the Collective Agreement was violated because the Employer did not equally distribute overtime at the Vanier Centre in Brampton during the period of their assignment. The grievors assert that they were not equally assigned overtime work because they had not received Youth Offender Training which was needed to work with the young offender population.

10Ms. Stewart worked at the Waterloo Detention Centre and on July 6, 2001 she was notified that she was being offered a temporary assignment to work at Guelph Correctional Centre because of the decommissioning of her jail. On October 19, 2001 she was informed that her temporary assignment would continue.

11Ms. Stewart was given various options under Article 20 of the Collective Agreement and she chose redeployment. On December 18, 2001 she was notified that she was to be permanently assigned to the Maplehurst Female Institution in Milton. This facility was not yet completed when GCC was closing and so the grievor was informed on February 26, 2002 that she would be temporarily assigned to work at the Vanier Centre for Women in Brampton. It was known that when Maplehurst female institution opened the adult female population from Vanier Centre for women would be transferred to the new facility. She continued to work there until February 10, 2003 when she moved to her permanent position at the Women’s Correctional Institution in Milton.

12The circumstances of the other grievors are similar if not identical.

13The grievors are of the view that they lost overtime opportunities because there were not given young offender training which would allow them to work in the young offender unit and be assigned overtime in that area like others.

14The grievors relied on a Memorandum of Agreement that was signed on May 3, 2001 which stated at page 11, paragraph 2(d):

All classified Correctional Officers that accept positions at the Interim Vanier Young Offender Unit must acquire or will be provided with ministry endorsed training in young offender services.

15The Union, on behalf of the grievors urged that this provision made clear young offender training should have been provided which would have allowed each to work overtime in the Young Offender Unit.

16The Employer asserted that the grievors were not covered by the provision they rely upon because they had not accepted a position at the Interim Vanier Young Offender Unit. Their home positions were in Milton and they were temporarily assigned to work at the Vanier Centre for Women in Brampton, not the Vanier Young Offender Unit. Accordingly, paragraph 2(d) of the May 3, 2001 Memorandum of Agreement does not apply.

17After consideration of the facts and submission I am of the view that the Employer is right. The provision upon which the grievors rely is entitled “Step One – Interim Vanier Female Young Offender Unit – Staffing Process”. The grievors were temporarily assigned to the Centre for Women in Brampton, not the Young Offender Unit. It is clear on the face of the Memorandum that Vanier Centre for Women and the Vanier Female Young Offender Unit were two different entities.

18It was noted by the grievors that while they were working at Vanier “staff at Vanier has specific training which allowed them to work with the Young Offenders.” They asked for the training but did not get it and that is why they missed out on overtime. I do not dispute this assertion. However, the fact that some were officers – who may have been permanently assigned to Vanier – were offered training does not alter the fact that the grievors had no right to the training.

19Accordingly, the grievance is denied.