HomeMy WebLinkAboutGregory 98-10-22IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN
ONTARIO COUNCIL OF REGENTS FOR COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND
TECHNOLOGY IN THE FORM OF SENECA COLLEGE
and
GRIEVANCE OF ROBERT GREGORY
OPSEU FILE NO.
BOARD OF ARBITRATION: Richard H. C. Arb., Chair
COUNSEL FOR THE COLLEGE:
COUNSEL FOR THE UNION:
Bob Gregory was employed by the College for many years and discharged on
and Special Needs R.T.E. a position he had held for most of the period since 1986.
breach of trust as a teacher, counsellor and co-worker to staff and students; all of which was
A board of arbitration
chaired by Arbitrator Keller reinstated Mr. Gregory on September 1, 1996 in an interim oral
decision followed by a written one reported at 57 L.A.C. (4th) 343.
the decision. By letters dated August 27 and September 13, 1996 {Exhibit Tabs 3 the
In so doing, the
!
-2-
p
That is a start. We are of the view
in this area would be advisable to ensure such
contained in its award. The board by a letter from the dated January 27, 1997 refused to
state that was a condition of reinstatement (Exhibit Tab 25).
Prior to this
{See Exhibit Tab 11).
agreed on a solution which enabled him to go back to work as of April 21, 1997 having been
-3-
In a
then advised that if Mr. Gregory did not attend; it would have to replace hi, resulting in a
suspension without pay. the letter warned that:
concerning your attendance at counselling sessions constitutes
Tab 12)
noting that he is doing so “without prejudice to having the matter resolved by the Keller
One grievance meeting occurred on December 17, 1996 and was followed up with a written
That same day in a separate letter the College confirms that it is replacing the
A Union Vice President writes the College President on January 22, 1997,
the next day from the Director of Employee Relations, Mel Fogel, who indicates that “on a
In the meantime, the Step Two meeting on had been held on
January and the formal written reply was issued on January {see Exhibit TAB
The second reply being unsatisfactory to the Grievor, he writes the
At the Step II meeting, and in the presence of the others, you
that the College had, in fact, only intended to obtain a long
{Exhibit Tab 29)
The President of the Union writes to the President of the College on
As a
The second
grievance is not before this Board of Arbitration and need not concern us here.
grievance was initially grieved in a timely fashion four days after the College imposed the
to arbitration is over a year the grievance when Mr. George Richards, a Union Grievance
a letter to the Grievor confiiing the results of a step two meeting held on January 28, 1997
{Exhibit , Tab 31).
settlement of the issue and the remm to work of the Grievor on April 21, 1997.
settled grounds of the suspension now be litigated.
Therefore, the Board is without
In any event, it is
-7-
In reply the Union submits that the Board is within its jurisdiction because the
32.02 It is the mutual desire of the parties that complaints of
come or ought reasonably to have come to the attention of the
have other persons in attendance. The immediate supervisor’s
response to the complaint shall be given seven days after
32.03 Failing settlement of a complaint, it shall be taken up as a
grievance (if it falls within the definition under 32.13 C) in the
following manner and sequence provided it is presented
College’s written decisions at each step shall contain reasons
the meeting. In addition to the Union Steward, a representative
designated by the Union Local shall be present at the meeting if
The
College President or the President’s designee may have such
In the event that any difference arising from the interpretation,
application, administration or alleged contravention of this
Grievance Procedure, then. bv notice in writing
grievor of the decision of the College official at Two. be
question as to whether a matter is arbitrable, shall be heard by a
R. [sic]
H. Brown
D. Carter
J. Devlin
0. Shiie
-9-
R.
review the matters referred to arbitration and agree to the
The Chair
The parties may from time to by mutual agreement, add
names to such panel. Also, the parties may agree to a
supplementary list of persons to act on a single or number of
occasions. Following selection of a Chair, the College and the
notify the other party and the Chair. However. the Colleee and
Union mav mutuallv to selection of a Chair. to
from the as in the case of a Chair and the other orovisions
at any Complaint or Grievance Step, the grievance will be
said not to be . . .a requirement of this Board that Mr. Gregory enter counselling as a
The counsellmg matter has been resolved.
He has had the
The person selected to do the work was suggested by the Grievor and
to this Board of Arbitration in a timely fashion in accordance with the parties Collective
1997, and grieved immediately thereafter. The College is apparently of the view that the
Step Two.
In
It
On
be referred to arbitration. The College, in January, had refused to go directly to arbitration
It had the benefit of that
the Union to arbitrate was in writing twice, on January and again on February
the College had the benefits of the Grievance Procedure. There is nothing in the Collective
of the Second Step for the Board to conclude this matter that the document at Tab was
Two.
reply of the College official plus 15 days, to refer to arbitration or, it could refer the matter
13
and would have entitlement to back pay for the period of the suspension.
If the College
and then make any admissibility and weighting of the evidence determinations rather than in
The merits of the second grievance are to be determined by this Board accordance with its
14-
DATED AT LONDON, ONTARIO THIS 22nd DAY OF OCTOBER,
Richard H. C.Arb.
On
the evidence the
to that final
are
not pursued step.
fact
arbitrate, it
did not know that for a on which it could act
formally submitted step.
until the union the grievance to that The
on March 6,
College
not satisfactory. We
is are, therefore, referring the matter
The 12, letter"The proposes...
College rejected
The the
by its mention arbitration its January letter? it
of in
proceeding to arbitration at all? the union prepared
(for
reasons
le=~ers as legitimate referrals to arbitration. If it did, there was
no n~ed for it to write the March 1998 letter.
Grievance and arbitration procedure ~me limits are mandatory
u~der this contract, and ~e&ve a well koow~ purpose. Refusing to
enforce them in this case puts the College at significant prejudice.
October 20, 1398 R.J. ~lLivan