May 25, 2001
Storm clouds ahead
Is MTC’s gleaming exterior already starting to crack?
The Ohio Civil Service Employees Association issued the following press
release on May 22. Our thanks to Roger Hogue of Local 521 (Mimico C.C.) for
picking up on this one.
Prison Companies’ Turnover Rates Violate State Mandates
Two private companies managing state-owned prisons are violating state law
and have created unnecessary dangers because of high turnover rates among their
security staff, according to one of Ohio’s state employee unions. The group
says that, according to information obtained yesterday from the Ohio Department
of Rehabilitation and Corrections, Management and Training Corporation (MTC) and
CiviGenics Corporation, which manage state prisons in Conneaut and Grafton
respectively, are ignoring laws that require the companies to keep annual
turnover rates below 20 per cent.
“CiviGenics’ turnover at the North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
(NCCTF) was 52 per cent for 2000, plus an additional 13 per cent turnover in the
first quarter of 2001,” said David Slone, Vice President of the Ohio Civil
Service Employees Association, which represents 11,000 state prison workers.
Slone said he was even more alarmed by MTC’s turnover because the company
has just been awarded the right to take over management of NCCTF from CiviGenics.
“MTC’s Lake Erie Correctional Institution (LECI) was in operation for only
nine months in 2000, yet they had a 25 per cent turnover among their security
staff,” said Slone.
Turnover rates are considered by prison experts to be an important measure of
safety and management effectiveness, and the 20 per cent maximum turnover rate
was made a key requirement of legislation that established the two privately
managed prisons. LECI was established in the 1995 state budget bill, and NCCTF
created by HB 293 in 1998.
Data from the Criminal Justice Institute (CJI), a non-profit provider of
prison statistics, shows private prison companies nationally suffer from
turnover rates much higher than their public counterparts. CJI’s 1999
Corrections Yearbook showed that the average reported turnover rate was nearly
41 per cent. In contrast, the turnover rate among employees working in Ohio’s
public prisons is only 6 per cent.
“It’s impossible to operate a prison safely with staff who are
inexperienced and trying to get out,” said Tim Shafer, president of the union’s
Corrections Assembly and a corrections officer at the Pickaway Correctional
Institution. “Proper inmate management requires the use of veteran corrections
officers and sergeants who are dedicated to their work and who know how to
respond to any situation. MTC has high employee dissatisfaction and has created
an enormous danger because its pool of experience is so low.”
Slone said he was stunned by the high rates and wondered how MTC’s contract
at LECI was renewed as well as being given the additional contract to operate
NCCTF. “The turnover ceiling isn’t a goal, it’s a requirement. MTC has
flouted the turnover ceiling and should have been disqualified from further
contracts. It has made profits more important than providing the pay, benefits,
training and support it needs to retain staff. This greed and mismanagement is
putting thousands of Ohioans at risk and is one more reason the use of private
prison companies should be banned,” said Slone.
Bill 57 changes “insane”
On May 17 the Harris government introduced Bill 57, a dangerous new law that,
if passed, will amend 30 different laws. The most shocking changes will gut the
Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) and put the lives of all Ontario
workers at risk.
“It took a century of union battles to build up worker health and safety
protections in this province,” said OPSEU president Leah Casselman. “We
cannot let one government wipe them away with the stroke of a pen.
Among many of the changes to the OHSA is the elimination of the requirement
that a Ministry of Labour inspector must attend the worksite to investigate a
work refusal. The new amendment would allow an inspector to investigate over the
phone. An inspector could issue a ruling on a hazard without ever seeing
it.
“This is insane,” said Casselman. “The police don’t inspect a crime
scene over the phone. Without an evaluation by an independent inspector,
employers could force workers to go back to work, without doing anything about
the hazard.
The requirement of a labour inspector to attend the worksite is especially
important in correctional facilities where the right to refuse is limited.
“Often, inspectors cannot grasp the danger involved unless they see it with
their own eyes,” said MERC chair Barry Scanlon. “Members are going to get
hurt, or worse, if some inspector takes the easy way out and rules by phone.”
More information on Bill 57 is available on the OPSEU web site.
Toxic mould invades Sarnia P&P
A toxic mould outbreak in the Sarnia Probation and Parole office has left
members ill and suffering effects that could possibly last a lifetime.
Staff were evacuated from the office when high concentration levels of mould
spores were discovered. The Ministry of Labour has ordered four of the
individual offices sealed.
Some members have already tested positive for contaminated blood. In some
cases, this mould contamination can last a lifetime.
“It’s absolutely horrible that our members could be affected for life
because of a workplace hazard,” said David Kerr, probation and parole
representative of the OPSEU Corrections Ministry Employee Relations Committee.
“This just underscores the importance of having Ministry of Labour inspectors
attend the worksite to investigate heath and safety concerns.”
Guelph overtime award explained
The overtime grievance win out of Local 233 (Guelph C.C.) that was reported
in last week’s Lock Talk has generated a lot of questions from
other locals on how the decision applies to them.
Barry Scanlon, chair of the OPSEU Corrections Ministry Employee Relations
Committee, asked the law firm involved to provide the following summary of that
decision:
The issue in this case is the appropriate remedy where the overtime
distribution agreement at Guelph Correctional Centre (GCC) is breached. The
Union argued that a CO who is improperly denied an overtime opportunity should
receive payment equal to the payment she/he would have received for that lost
opportunity (a monetary remedy). The employer took the position that the only
remedy necessary was to provide the CO with another opportunity to work overtime
for the same number of hours (an in-kind remedy). The GSB ruled that ruled that
a monetary remedy is necessary where the employer breaches the GCC overtime
distribution protocol.
The GSB recognized that as a general rule an employee who is improperly
denied overtime will only receive an in-kind remedy, but that an in-kind remedy
will not be awarded in circumstances where it would lead to further breaches of
the collective agreement. The GSB found that this is what would occur at GCC
because of the unique nature of the overtime distribution agreement at Guelph.
Most overtime distribution agreements operate either as rotational systems
(the first overtime opportunity in offered to the most senior employee, the
second to the second most senior employee and so on until all employees have
been offered overtime when the list starts over) or an equalization system (all
employees are to get an equal amount of overtime within a fixed period - usually
a year - so that each overtime opportunity is offered to the employee who has
had the fewest opportunities so far that year).
The system at GCC is neither a rotational system nor an equalization system.
Correctional officers indicate which days and shifts they are available for
overtime. When an overtime shift becomes available it is offered to the CO with
the fewest number of overtime hours in the previous two months who has signed up
for that shift. CO’s will get different amounts of overtime depending on how
often they make themselves available and depending on which times overtimes
opportunities arise. Overtime is only equalized among those correctional
officers who have signed up for a particular overtime shift. This is not a true
equalization system.
This means that an in-kind remedy given to one CO would just create further
breaches of the overtime distribution protocol. For example: CO X and CO Y are
the only two CO’s who sign up for overtime for a night shift on Monday. The
shift is given to Y even though X had less overtime hours in the last two
months. If the employer simply gives X an overtime shift on Wednesday night to
remedy this breach, this creates a breach in the rights of any CO who signed up
for overtime on Wednesday night and had less overtime hours than X. If no CO had
less hours than X, then the employer has not given X any remedy as X was
entitled to the Wednesday night shift anyway.
In order to determine whether the ruling in this case will apply to other
correctional institutions, the overtime distribution agreement or policy at each
institution needs to be examined. If the agreement is a rotational or
equalization system, then in-kind remedies will be appropriate. Where the system
is not a rotational system and, like GCC is not a true equalization scheme,
monetary remedies should be paid.
For campaign information, call Don Ford (ext. 442) or
Pam Doig (ext. 687) at 1-800-268-7376 or (416) 443-8888.
e-mail:
