Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-2357.Waggoner.88-08-09EMPLOYtSDEL4 COVRONNE DEL’ONT,4RIO CPMMISSION DE REGLEMENT DES GRIEFS IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION 2357/87 2358/87 2359/87 2360187 Between: OPSEIZ (John Wag'joner) Grievdr Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Before: G . .: . Brand t Vice-Chairperson - and - The Crown in Rir~ht of Ontario (Ministry of Correctional Services) Employer' For the Grievor: For the Emrslover: M. Ganda 11 Member G. Peckham Member -, ? 2 TNTERIM DECISION In this matter there are 4 grievances before the Board. They are dated June 4, 1987 .(GSB 2360/87), August 17, 1967 (2359/87), September 28, 1987 (2358/87) and December 10, 1987 (2357/871 . One other grievance, dated June 15, 1987, has been included in GSB file 2360/87. However, it does not appear that it has as yet been fully processed through the grievance procedure. For the sake ~of completeness we include it among the other grievances. Each of the grievances, save for the December 10, 1987 gr tevance alleges a violation of the collective agreement in respect of various efforts made by the grievor to obtain various positions in the Ontario Public Service. The December lo., 1987, grievance alleges an unjust and unfair termination of employment. On December 7, 1987 the grievor was contacted by the Area Personnel Administrator of the Ministry and advised of a meeting to be held on January 12, 1988 to discuss. the four gr levances which had been filed to that point. The filing of the December 10, 1987 grievance apparently led to a re-scheduling of that meeting for, on January 11, 1988, the grievor was advised of a meeting to be held on January 19, 1988 to discuss all of the grievances. The grievor did not attend at the meeting on January 19,1988 and was informed, by letter of that date, that the Ministry considered the grievances to have been withdrawn. On February 4, 1988 the Union requested the Registrar to schedule a hearing of 3 the grievances before the Board and, in due course,. the grievances were scheduled to be heard on May 25, 1988. In addition to these matters the grievor had also filed a complaint before the Public Service Labour Relations Tribunal which complaint was scheduled to be heard on April 18, 1988. He was contacted on December 18, 1987 by the Union and informed of the April 18,1988 hearing date before the Tribunal. On or about February 0, 1988 the grievor left the province of Ontario and left no forwarding address. He is reputed to be living somewhere in Atlantic Canada although at this point his address is not known. Efforts have been. made by the Union to contact him, both with respect to the Tribunal proceedings and these proceedings, but such efforts have not been successful. On April 18, 1988 the Tribunal met and dismissed an application by counsel to the IJnion and the grievor for an adjournment. In’ addition the Tribunal saw fit to dismiss the complaint at that time. On’May 10, 1988 counsel to the Ministry wrote to the Registrar Of the Grievance Settlement Board advising of the grievor’s failure to attend at the Tribunal hearing and the grievance meetings and of the Union’s in3bility to contact the grievor. Counse 1 requested that the grievances be dismissed without the necessity of a hearing. Notwithstanding that request a hearing was held into the grievances and counsel to the Ministry repeated his request that the grievances be dismissed .on the basis that they had either 4 been wlthdrawn OK abandoned by the grlevor. Counsel for the Union requested that the matter be adjourned in OKdeK to permit the Union to make further efforts to contact the grievor. Although this Board has treated the failure of a grievor to attend at a scheduled hearing as constituting an abandonment of the grievance, we are not persuaded that this matter should be disposed of in that way. NOK do we believe that we should respond to the grievor's absence from the proceedings in the same way as the Tribunal,.tbat is, by dismissing the grievance. In the complaint before the Tribunal the complainant (grievor) had been advised of the scheduled date of the hearing of his complaint.and chose not to attend. In the circumstances it is reasonable to infer that he was pKepare,d to abandon the complaint. However, in the matter before us, it has not yet been possible to inform the grievor of the scheduling of the hearing of his grievances before this Board. It is conceivable, though perhaps unlikely, that when he is so informed of the date when his grievances will be finally disposed of, he might choose to attend to prosecute his grievances, Thus, we do not find it as easy to draw the inference that, by reason of his absence, the grievor can be taken to have abandoned his g~rievances. However, having concluded that the matter should be adjourned, we do not believe it proper that the adjournment should be until such time as the grievor can be contacted. The EmplOyeK iS entitled to have the matter finally dlsposed of one 5 way or the other and should not be expecte~d to walt indefinltely until the Union is successful’in contacting the grievor. Consequently, it is the order of the Board that the matter be adjourned until no later than November 25, 1988 (6 months from the date of hearing) and that, in the event that the matter cannot be scheduled for hearing by that date, the grievances should be conside.red to have been abandoned and dismissed for want of prosecution without the necessity, of any further action or order on the part of the Board. Dated at LONDON, Ontario this 9th day of AuRusC 1988 G. J. Brandt’, Vice Chair H. Gandall, Member iEj&&GLs ----- G. Peckham, Member