HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-0621.Brooks.87-02-19Between:
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before:
For the Grievor:
For the Employer:
Hearing:
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
OPSEU (D. Brooks) Grievor
and
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Health)
j. W. Samuels, Vice-Chairman
S. Schachter, Member
G. Peckham, Member
S. Murray,
Grievance-Classification Officer
OPSEU
M. Quick
COUIlStZl,
Legal Services Branch,
Ministry of Health
.huary 22, 1987
Employer
DECISION 2
The grievor was a Child Care Worker at the Whitby Psychiatric
Hospital. On June 6, 1986, he was suspended pending an investigationinto
an allegatlon of serious ITilSCOndUCt mvolvlng a patient in the Hospital. On
June 24, he was discharged and prohibited from entering Hospital grounds or
having any contact with patients, in light of information received by
management concerning various similar Incidents. He grieves that there
was no just cause for his suspension and dismissal.
The employer called in the police before the discharge, and it is
understood that five charges have been laid against the grievor. A Canada-
wide warrant for his arrest has been issued.
The grievor d!d not appear at our heartng though the UnfOn has made
numerous and exhaustive-efforts to contact him and to inform him of the
hearing. On December 16, 1986, Ms. Murray called Joan Gates, the Local
President at the Hospital to see if Ms. Gates knew how to get a hold of the
grievor. Ms. Gates did not. know. The next day, Ms. Murray sent a letter to
the grievor at his last known address, asking him to contact her concerning
the grievances and up-coming hearing. On December 19, Ms. Murray spoke to
Mr. P. Dashfield, a personal friend of the grievor, and Mr. Dashfield spoke
with the grif?VOr’S brother-in-law, Mr.K Thibeault. Neither of these
gentlemen knew where the grievor was to be found. On January 2, 1987, Ms.
Murray sent a registered letter to the grievor’s last known address, again
telling him that she wanted to talk with him about the grievances atid tip-
coming hearing, and possible consequences if he did not attend. Thereafter,
both the December 17 and January 2 letters were returned to the Union. On
January 7, MS. Murray ran a computer check in the Union offices to see if
there had been any change of address for the grievor. The Union’s records
show the address to which the two letters had been sent. On January 19, Ms.
Murray Spoke again with Ms. Gates. The latter had spoken to the grievor’s
family members and they had no information concerning his whereabouts.
On January 21, Ms. Murray contacted the grievor’s lawyer, who had been
!
, i f
3
tnvolved in the lnitlal stages of the Investigation. Ms. Murray told him of
the up-coming hearing and asked if he had any information which could
assist her. The lawyer claimed privilege and gave no information. On the
same day, MS. Murray contacted Mr. Thibeault herself, and he Still knew
nothing of the grievor’s whereabouts.
In our View, in all of these circumstances, we find that the grievor
has abandoned his grievances. Like the case of ScWer, 7SfXJ, these are
grievances under section 18(2)(c) of the Crown Emp/oyees Co//ecrive
BargainingAc~, and the individual grievor has control regardless of the
Union’s position. It is the grievor who must bring his case. The Union
stands ready to assist. But the Union has no information about the
ctrcumstances involvfd except what It can learn from the grievor. The
grievor has failed to proceed with these grievances in spite of the best
efforts of the Union to help him do so. It seems clear to us that the grievor
has abandoned his grievances, and therefore they are dismissed.
oared at London, Ontario, this 19 day of February , 1987
S. Schachcer. Member
G. Peckham, Member