HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 01-08-14 Cocei- ,b-caO
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Between
SENECA COLLEGE
(the "College")
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
(the "Union")
RE: GRIEVANCE # 97B622 (ACADEMIC)
Use of Sessional and Partial-Load Employees
In the
School of Legal and Public Services Librarian Administration
BOARD OF ARBITRATION:
Pamela Cooper Picher Chairperson
Robert J. Gallivan College Nominee
Brian Switzman Union Nominee
APPEARANCES for COLLEGE:
Robert Little Counsel
Denise Chan Human Resources
Elizabeth Thorns Chair, School of Legal & Public Admin.
APPEARANCES for UNION:
Nick Coleman Counsel
Written Submissions were received dated July 13, July 17, and July 20, 2001.
INTERIM DECISION
By an Interim Decision dated November 8, 2000, the Board dismissed the
preliminary motion of the College contending that the Union's grievance is
inarbitrable. For the reasons set out in the Board's Interim Decision, the Board
declined to accept the College's submission that the Union had changed the
substance of its grievance and, thus, had rendered the grievance inarbitrable.
The College has filed for judicial review of the Board's Interim Decision.
The continuation dates established for the hearing of the Union's grievance on its
medts are September 17 and October 31, 2001. Counsel for the College advises
that the judicial review application will be heard on October 10, 2001 and has
asked the Board to adjourn its hearing scheduled for September 17, 2001
pending the hearing of its judicial review application. Counsel for the College
states that, "Is]imply put, if the Employer's judicial review application is
successful, then conducting a day of hearing on September 17th would be
pointless." The Union objects to the adjournment.
Having carefully reviewed the submissions of the parties, the Board
declines the College's request for an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for
September 17, 2001. Even if the Board were to schedule a further date now to
replace the September 17th date in the event that the College is not succ~..~.~ful in
its judicial review application, the resulting delay for the continuation of this
hearing would be substantial and would extend the hearing of this matter well
into 2002. The arbitration process is designed to provide the parties with a
speedy and efficient resolution of its disagreements. The filing of a judicial review
application does not, standing on its own, provide justification for the
adjournment of an arbitration. The hearing of the merits of the Union's grievance
has already been delayed by the College's preliminary objection, which has been
dismissed by this Board. The Board finds that there has been no basis advanced
by the College which would justify adjourning the hearing respecting the merits of
the grievance pending the outcome of the College's judicial review application.
(See Canada Post Corporation and Canadian Union of Postal Workers
fNational Policy Grievance N-00-88-00001 (1991), 22 L.A.C. 214 (Burkett)).
Accordingly, for the reasons given, the College's request for an
adjournment of the hearing scheduled for September 17, 2001 is hereby denied.
Dated in Toronto this 14th day of Au~~
~ V~ulo Coop~ ~e~
Chairperson ~
I dissont "Robo~ J. Gallivan"
Golle~e ~ominoo
I concur "Brian Switzman"
Union Nominee