HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-2270.Mazareanu.15-03-24 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#2014-2270
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Association of Management, Administrative and
Professional Crown Employees of Ontario
(Mazareanu) Association
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure) Employer
BEFORE Bram Herlich Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Kelly Doctor
Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP
Counsel
FOR THE EMPLOYER Stewart McMahon
Treasury Board Secretariat
Legal Services Branch
Counsel
HEARING March 18, 2015
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The employer has asked that I dismiss the dispute filed by the Association in this
matter as untimely. The Association acknowledges that the dispute was filed beyond the time
contemplated by the collective agreement. Both parties agree, however, that I have the
discretion to extend the time limit in question and to thereby dismiss the employer’s
preliminary motion. They disagree as to whether I ought to exercise that discretion.
[2] The parties also agreed that, if I were persuaded to exercise my discretion as
urged by the Association, they were content for me to do so by way of a summary decision.
This is that.
[3] Neither the facts nor the law in this case were the subject of significant dispute
between the parties.
[4] With respect to the facts, I need say nothing more than the dispute was filed six
working days beyond the 30 working days time limit set out in the agreement.
[5] The parties also agreed that chief among the factors to be considered in the
exercise of my discretion are the following:
• The reasons for the delay
• The length of the delay
• The nature of the grievance
• The resulting prejudice, if any, that would be visited on the employer
[6] (These factors are extracted from the oft-cited decision in Re Becker Milk
Company Ltd. and Teamsters Union, Local 647 (1978), 19 L.A.C. (2d) 217 (Burkett) and
expanded upon in Greater Niagara General Hospital and Ontario Nurses’ Association
(1981), 1 L.A.C. (3d) 1 (Schiff) and confirmed in a decision of this Board in OPSEU (Stone) v
Clean Water Agency GSB File No. 1111/99, March 19, 2001 (Johnston).)
- 3 -
[7] In the instant case, the employer concedes that it would suffer no prejudice from
the delay should the matter proceed and also acknowledges that the nature of the grievance
(one where the complainant’s continuing employment may hang in the balance) militates in
favour of extending the time limit.
[8] The employer was not inclined to make a similar concession with respect to the
length of the delay. Despite that, I am satisfied that the delay in the instant case (six working
days) is relatively marginal and equally favours the extension of time limit.
[9] It is in respect of the reasons for the delay that the employer makes its strongest
argument. The reasons for the delay are not compelling, although any one of the proffered
reasons (such as change in assignments of Association personnel impeding timely
communications or the complainant’s efforts to secure further basic information from the
employer) might easily explain a six-day delay.
[10] In any event and even accepting, as I do, that the reasons for the delay in this case
were less than compelling, I am satisfied that when one considers all of the relevant factors as
a whole, this is a case where I ought to and hereby do exercise my discretion to extend the
relevant time limit.
[11] Having regard to the foregoing, the employer’s motion is hereby dismissed. The
parties should contact the Registrar for the purpose of setting further hearing dates.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 24th day of March 2015.
Bram Herlich, Vice-Chair