HomeMy WebLinkAboutUrguhart 87-12-15 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN: LOYALIST COLLEGE
(The Emp loye~')
AND: ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE UNION
(The Union)
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE GRIEVANCE OF JIM URGUHART:
BOARD OF ARBITRATION:
H.D. BROWN, CHAIRMAN
J. McMANNUS, UNION NOMINEE
R.J. GALLIVAN, EMPLOYER NOMINEE
APPEARANCES FOR THE EMPLOYER: ANN E. BURKE, COUNSEL
APPEARANCES FOR THE UNION: JANET NOSHER, COUNSEL
A HEARING IN THIS MATTER WAS HELD AT TORONTO ON DECMEBER
lOo 1987
INTERIM AWARD
Two grievances were filed by the grievor
under the provisions of The Collective Agreement between
the parties, one of which concerns an allegation of
improper lay-off. In accordance with the provisions of
the agreement, Hr. Wayne Cochrane was named by the
grievor as the person he is entitled to displace in his
claim for remedy. As a result, ~r. Cochrane was given
notice of these proceedings by letter from counsel for
the union dated December, 1987 as his interest could be
affected by the results of this case.
At the hearing, the Board was advised thaC
Hr. Cochrane was not present and that he had been told
by counsel for the Employer Chat because of the apparent
preliminary objections to the Board's Jurisdiction to
deal with the .grievances thac he was hoc required at
chis hearing which would hoc involve the evidence. Hr.
Cochrane had also communicated with counsel for the
Union and was advised thac he would not be required by
the Union as a witness at this hearing. The Board could
not be assured by counsel that the third party would hOC
have attended at these proceedings in any event.
The Board ruled orally at the hearing that
having heard the opening statements of counsel
concerning the issues raised in the grievances that it
would not proceed to deal in any way with the grievances
without the opportunity being given to Mr. Cochrane to
attend co deal with his interest in this case.
A third party to such proceedings who has an
obvious interest in the outcome of the grievance and
referral to arbitration in which he is a named employee
and who could be displaced has a right to attend and
participate in all proceedings before the Board. A
third party is not excluded from dealing with a
Jurisdictional issue between the parties as his interest
is involved in that determination in a similar manner as
in the merits of the case. If a third party
independently decides not to attend a scheduled hearing
his further right to participate may be at an end, but
chat person must be given proper notice (which was done
in this case) and the opportunity to attend all hearings
of the Board.
Here the third party could have understood
chat he was not needed or did hOC have to attend the
hearing and the Board could noc assume on the facts Chat
~r. Cochrane either declined to attend or ignored his
right co participate in ~he hearing. In the interest of
providing a fair hearing and applying the principle of
natural Justice, the Board decided not to proceed
further with this dispute until the third party vas
properly before the tribunal.
In these circumstances the Board adjourned the
proceedings without dealing with the Jurisdictional
issue or the merits in order Co give all interested
parties proper notice of the hearing. The next hearing
will be sec by the Board which viii give the appropriate
notice to'all interested persons.
Dated aC Oakvllle, chis ~ day of December, 1987.
CHAIRNAN .(FOR 't'H'IS BOARD)