HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-2699.Hyland.13-04-29 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#2009-2699, 2009-2700, 2009-2701, 2010-0572, 2010-0589, 2010-0590, 2010-0591, 2010-0592,
2010-0593
UNION#2009-0368-0161, 2009-0368-0162, 2009-0368-0163, 2009-0368-0202, 2010-0368-0018,
2010-0368-0019, 2010-0368-0020, 2010-0368-0021, 2010-0368-0022
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Hyland) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE Ken Petryshen Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION David Wright
Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
FOR THE EMPLOYER Peter Dailleboust
Ministry of Government Services
Labour Practice Group
Counsel
CONFERENCE CALL April 26, 2013.
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The matter before me concerns grievances filed by Mr. B. Hyland in which he essentially
claims that the Employer has failed to properly accommodate his disability at the Central East
Correctional Centre. The evidentiary phase of the proceeding has been completed. Two
previous days scheduled for argument were adjourned at the request of the Employer. The
Employer’s request to adjourn the next scheduled hearing date of May 1, 2013, is opposed by the
Union. I entertained submissions from counsel on the Employer’s adjournment request during a
conference call on April 26, 2013.
[2] The Employer’s reason for requesting an adjournment is based on the fact that counsel
responsible for this matter will not be in a position to attend the May 1 hearing. Mr. Dailleboust
advised that his colleague left this week for the United States to be with his brother who recently
experienced some serious unexpected health issues. He explained that his colleague is the only
family member who is able to assist his brother and that he will not be in a position to return to
Toronto in the circumstances until after the hearing date of May 1, 2013.
[3] While not questioning the circumstances upon which the adjournment request is based
and while sympathetic, Union counsel argued that the adjournment request should be denied. He
referenced the previous adjournments given to the Employer and noted that a further delay of
this proceeding is unacceptable from Mr. Hyland’s perspective. Union counsel indicated that
Mr. Hyland and the Union take the position that the Employer should assign another lawyer to
argue the case on May 1. Union counsel also requested, assuming I granted the adjournment,
that the next hearing date be preemptory as against the Employer.
- 3 -
[4] After entertaining submissions on the Employer’s adjournment request, I advised counsel
during the conference call that I will grant the adjournment. There is no doubt that the parties
and Mr. Hyland want to have this phase of the hearing completed as soon as possible. It is
unfortunate that some of the scheduled hearing dates were adjourned, but those adjournments
were warranted. I am compelled to assess this latest adjournment request on the basis of its own
distinct circumstances and merit. I had no difficulty in concluding that the circumstances here
entitled the Employer to an adjournment of the May 1 hearing. Employer counsel has been
confronted with a serious family situation requiring him to leave the country to be with his
brother. He is not able to abandon his family responsibilities and return to Toronto for the May 1
hearing. This proceeding has required many days of hearing over a long period of time. It
would be unrealistic and unreasonable to compel the Employer to assign another lawyer to argue
this matter on such short notice. I was also satisfied that these are not the circumstances which
would warrant a direction that the next hearing date be preemptory as against the Employer.
[5] For the foregoing reasons, the hearing in this matter scheduled for Wednesday, May 1,
2013, is hereby adjourned. The next scheduled date for this proceeding is June 20, 2013. During
the conference call, I offered counsel two earlier dates, but it appears that they may not be
available to the parties. I advised counsel that I will advise them of any cancellations I have
before June 20 in order to explore the possibility of getting final argument completed as soon as
possible. Unless an earlier date can be found that works for the parties, this matter will proceed
on June 20, 2013.
Dated at Toronto this 29th day of April 2013.
Ken Petryshen, Vice-Chair