HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-0936.Ellis.15-06-02 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#2013-0936, 2013-0937, 2013-0938
UNION#2013-0228-0052, 2013-0228-0052, 2013-0228-0052
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Ellis) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of the Attorney General) Employer
BEFORE Mary Lou Tims Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Seung Chi
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Roslyn Baichoo
Treasury Board Secretariat
Labour Practice Group
Counsel
HEARING June 1, 2015
- 2 -
INTERIM DECISION
[1] The grievor filed three grievances (GSB #’s 2013-0936, 0937 and 0938). The
hearing in these matters was scheduled for June 1, 2015 commencing at 10:00 a.m.
[2] The grievor did not appear, and the hearing was adjourned until 10:30 a.m.
[3] At that time, Union Counsel advised as follows: On May 29, 2015, the grievor
called him at 3:00 p.m. and left a message advising that he needed to speak with him.
At around 3:45 p.m. that day, Union Counsel spoke to the grievor. The grievor told him
that he just obtained a permanent position and that his employer would not allow him to
take time off. Union Counsel informed the grievor that the Board may dismiss his three
grievances if he failed to attend at the hearing and the grievor told him that he would
check with his employer again. Union Counsel spoke with the grievor again at 4:10 p.m.
on May 29, and the grievor told him that his employer denied his request for time off.
Union Counsel then advised Employer Counsel that the Union sought an adjournment
of the June 1 hearing.
[4] Union Counsel requested at the June 1 hearing that an adjournment be granted.
Employer Counsel took the position that the adjournment should not be granted and
that the three grievances should be dismissed, Counsel noting that these matters had
been scheduled for three earlier dates, all adjourned.
[5] After some discussion, Counsel advised that the parties agreed to the following
which I now order:
I. The Union will advise the grievor that he is to provide to the Union no
later than two weeks from the issuance of this decision any and all
evidence upon which he relies in support of the Union’s request for an
adjournment.
II. Union Counsel will provide forthwith to Employer Counsel any such
evidence which the grievor provides to the Union.
- 3 -
III. If the Employer agrees that an adjournment of the June 1, 2015
hearing was warranted upon review of any evidence provided to it in
accordance with para 5(ii), Employer Counsel will so advise Union
Counsel and the parties will request that the Board schedule a new
hearing date. The Employer reserves the right to argue that any such
adjournment should be on terms, and if the parties are unable to reach
agreement on such terms, a teleconference will be convened to permit
them to deal with such dispute.
IV. If the Union fails to provide evidence to Employer Counsel in
accordance with para 5(ii) or if the Employer maintains that the
adjournment ought not to be granted and that the grievances should be
dismissed after reviewing any evidence provided to it in accordance
with para 5(ii), Employer Counsel will advise Union Counsel of the
Employer’s position as soon as reasonably possible.
V. Upon the Employer so advising Union Counsel, the parties will forward
to the Vice-Chair any evidence provided to the Employer by the Union
in accordance with para 5(ii) and will request that the Board schedule a
teleconference.
VI. The parties will have the opportunity to argue during such
teleconference whether the requested adjournment of the June 1, 2015
proceedings was warranted and whether or not the grievances should
be dismissed. Such argument will be made on the basis of the
chronology of dates outlined by both Counsel at the June 1, 2015
hearing and the evidence, if any, provided to the Employer by the
Union in accordance with para 5(ii). The parties both acknowledge
that Union Counsel’s description of what the grievor communicated to
him during their May 29, 2015 discussions does not establish the truth
of what was reported to Union Counsel by the grievor.
[6] My jurisdiction in these matters is retained.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 2nd day of June 2015.
Mary Lou Tims, Vice-Chair