Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-2441.Union Grievance.06-10-24 DecisionCrown Employees Grievance Settlement Board Suite 600 180 Dundas St. West Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Commission de règlement des griefs des employés de la Couronne Bureau 600 180, rue Dundas Ouest Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tél. : (416) 326-1388 Téléc. : (416) 326-1396 GSB# 2002-2441 UNION# 2002-0999-0018 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Union Grievance) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Government Services) Employer - and - Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario Intervenor BEFORE Ken Petryshen Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION Richard Blair Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Barristers and Solicitors FOR THE EMPLOYER David Strang, Senior Counsel Janice Campbell, Counsel Ministry of Government Services FOR THE INTERVENOR Michael Mitchell Sack Goldblatt Mitchell Barristers and Solicitors HEARING October 20, 2006. 2 Decision A component of its bargaining unit integrity grievance is a claim by the Union that the services provided by Native Inmate Liaison Officers (“NILOs”) in four of the Employer’s institutions in northern Ontario constitute bargaining unit work. The Union requests an order directing the Employer to post the four positions. At a hearing on February 27, 2006, I entertained submissions as to whether certain service providers who employ a NILO were entitled to intervene in this proceeding. One of the NILOs is Mr. V. Pawis. He now operates under an entity called White Buffalo Road Healing Lodge Inc. (“White Buffalo”). In a decision dated March 27, 2006, I denied the request of the service providers to intervene in this proceeding. I determined that their contractual relationship with the Employer did not give them a direct interest in this matter. The hearing resumed on June 29, 2006. That morning, I was provided with a letter from counsel for Mr. Pawis advising that his client was considering an application to judicially review the March 27, 2006 decision denying intervener status to the service providers. After counsel made opening statements, the parties discussed various issues and then agreed to adjourn the hearing. Mr. Strang, counsel for the Employer, advised counsel opposite and the Vice-Chair that he would inform AMAPCEO of this proceeding, given his view that AMAPCEO may have an interest in claiming the work performed by the NILOs. The parties agreed to four additional hearing dates, the first two to take place on October 6 and 20, 2006. The Board sent a Notice of Proceeding confirming the four hearing dates to all of the parties. As a courtesy, this Notice of Proceeding was sent also to Mr. Pawis and his counsel. 3 Prior to the October 6, 2006 hearing date, counsel for AMAPCEO wrote to the Board indicating that his client would be seeking intervener status in this proceeding. He also requested that the October 6, 2006 date be adjourned because he was unable to attend on that day. The parties agreed to adjourn the October 6 hearing date and to address the issue of AMAPCEO’s right to intervene on the next hearing date. The Board advised Mr. Pawis and his counsel of the adjournment and that the hearing would continue on October 20, 2006. At the hearing on October 20, 2006, the parties agreed that AMAPCEO was entitled to intervene in the proceeding. Accordingly, AMAPCEO will be added as an intervener in this proceeding. The parties also agreed that the only issue that would be addressed was whether the Employer is obliged to post the NILO positions. If the Employer does not succeed on this issue, it was recognized that the Employer’s decision to post the four positions in a particular bargaining unit could result in a further dispute. On the day before the October 20, 2006 hearing date, counsel for White Buffalo sent me a letter, with copies to the parties, indicating that his client had been unable to retain him to proceed with a judicial review. On behalf of his client, counsel requested the following: 1) An opportunity for White Buffalo Road Healing Lodge Inc. to make submissions at the motion by AMAPCEO for standing at the GSB hearing relating to OPSEU’s bargaining unit integrity grievance. 2) Should the GSB decide to grant AMAPCEO standing, White Buffalo Road would like the opportunity to make submissions regarding a reconsideration of your decision to deny it standing. 3) Should the GSB deny AMAPCEO standing, White Buffalo Road would like the opportunity to make submissions regarding limited participatory rights in the hearing. 4 Although provided with notice, no one appeared on behalf of White Buffalo at the hearing on October 20, 2006. The failure of anyone to appear on behalf of White Buffalo at the hearing is alone a sufficient basis for denying the foregoing requests. In any event, with respect to the first request, White Buffalo does not have standing to make submissions on AMAPCEO’s motion for standing because it is not a party in this proceeding. As for the second request, the Board does not have the statutory power to reconsider its decisions. Even if it did have such a power, the issue of whether AMAPCEO is entitled to standing has no relationship to whether White Buffalo should have standing. As for the third request, the Board has already addressed the issue of whether the service providers could intervene in this proceeding. The request for an opportunity to make further submissions regarding participation by White Buffalo in this matter is denied. The hearing in this matter will continue on November 2 and 3, 2006. Dated at Toronto this 24th day of October 2006 Ken Petryshen – Vice-Chair