HomeMy WebLinkAboutBrin 05-05-26
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
Community Living Temiskaming South
-and-
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
. Local 646
Grievance of Caroline Brin
Lorne Slotnick, Arbitrator
Representing the Employer - Murray Ellies
Representing the Union - Will Presley
Hearing - New Liskeard, May 18,2005
v~ OO<S - Ol9'-\lo-Dci
2
AWARD
This grievance arises from the dismissal of Caroline Brin from her position as a full-time
counsellor effective March 31,2005. The Employer, Community Living South
Temiskaming, provides services to people with developmental disabilities in the
Timiskaming District of northern Ontario.
The letter of dismissal is 5 Y2 pages and outlines a number of serious allegations, which,
if proven, would undoubtedly be cause for significant discipline or dismissal.
I was appointed to hear the grievance by letter dated April 13 stating that the parties had
agreed on a May 18 hearing date. When the hearing convened, the Employer was
present with 10 witnesses to whom it had issued summonses. The Union's representative
and local president were also present. However, the grievor was absent.
I was advised by both the Union and the Employer that the grievor had been present at
the hotel where the hearing was to proceed about half an hour before the scheduled start
time. The Union's representative, Will Presley, said he and the grievor had met and that
the grievor said she was leaving and not returning. He said the grievor had made some
comments about not recognizing the arbitration as a valid process, and about her intention
to launch various lawsuits; he said he has advised the grievor that the courts will not deal
with the dismissal of a unionized employee.
3
The Union said it could not proceed with the arbitration hearing and asked me to adjourn
the matter to another date. The Employer opposed the adjournment and asked that I
dismiss the grievance.
I decided at that point to stand down the hearing until half an hour after the scheduled
start time in case the grievor changed her mind and decided to return. She did not.
At that point I advised the parties I would be dismissing the grievance. In the
circumstances, there is no reason to grant the adjournment requested by the Union. The
grievor was obviously aware of the hearing on her grievance but chose to leave. The
Employer went to considerable effort to assemble its witnesses and prepare its case, and
it would be unfair to put the Employer to further expense by granting an adjournment
when there is no indication that the grievor intends to pursue this matter through the
grievance and arbitration process.
Because of the grievor's actions, the Union is unable to represent her in any meaningful
way in a grievance involving allegations of misconduct. I have no alternative but to
dismiss the grievance.
~ disnrissed.
.~~
Lorne Slotnick, Arbitrator
May 26, 2005