Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-2054.Mirosolin.91-04-19 DecisionONTARIO CROWN EMPLOYEES G R I EVAN C E SETTLEMENT BOARD EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE DEL'ONTARIO COMMISSION DE REGLEMENT DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIo. M5G 1z8 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST. BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO). M5G 1z8 326- 1388 326- 1396 2054/90 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (Mirosolin) Grievor and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Attorney General) Employer BEFORE : FOR THE GRIEVOR FOR THE EMPLOYER HEARING B. Kirkwood S. Urbain D. Halpert Vice-Chairperson Member Member R. Anand Counsel Scott & Aylen Barrister & Solicitors G. Gledhill Staff Relations Officer Human Resources Ministry of the Attorney General March 20, 1991 Page 2 INTERIM DECISION The grievor alleged that she had received differential treatment as compared to other court clerks at the Provincial Court Office at 80 The East Mall, Etobicoke and that she had been discriminated against by reason of her race. She relied upon the new Article A of the collective agreement between the parties. At the Ministry's request, the grievor provided the Ministry with a list of particulars of her allegations, which spanned a number of years. It was the Union's position that it was not restricted to the events previously outlined. A few days prior to this hearing, the Union summoned various documents. The Ministry has produced certain documents, but is still in the process of searching for remaining documents. The Ministry's counsel advised this Board that it will be making an objection at the continuation of this hearing that only incidents which occurred between June 15, 1990, the date of the proclamation of Article A, and August 3, 1990, the date of the filing of the grievance are relevant. Page 3 The Union's counsel sought an opportunity to respond to the Ministry's position. Due to the complexity of the case, and the parties willingness to conduct the case in an efficient manner, the Board granted the adjournment requested by the parties upon the terms agreed to by the parties. Therefore the Board hereby adjourns the hearing to four days to be set by the Registrar for the presentation of the evidence, the second and third dates of the hearing to be set at least one month after the date set for the first day of hearing. In addition, as agreed between the parties: 1. The Union will provide the Ministry with a complete statement of particulars upon which it is relying. 2. The Ministry will provide a complete response to the statements made by the grievor and the new statement of particulars. 3. The Ministry will provide the Union with any remaining documents that are available to it. Page 4 4. The parties will forward the statements of particulars and the responses, and any related correspondence to the panel established to hear this matter in advance of the hearing. 5. This panel will not remain seized of the issues between the parties, in order that the Registrar may have as much flexibility as possible in setting the future dates of the hearing. Dated at Toronto, this 19th day of April 1991. B. A. Kirkwood, Vice-Chairperson Stan Urbain S. Urbain, Union Member D. Halpert D. Halpert, Emp oyer Nominee