HomeMy WebLinkAboutHannikainen 91-08-27 IN THE ~TTER OF AN ARBIT~TION
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COUNCIL OF REGENTS FOR THE COLLEGES
OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY
(NORTHERN COLLEGE)
- and -
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
(FOR ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES)
- Grievance No. 90C310 - A. Hannikainen
BOARD
MARTIN TEPLITSKY, Q.C.
Chairman
Barry Stephens
Union Nominee
David Camelletti
College Nominee
APPEARANCES
On behalf of the
College: Patrick Moran, Counsel
On behalf of the
Union: Rick Blair, Counsel
Hearing held by Conference Call on August 23rd at 9:00 a.m.
2
AWARD
With the consent of the parties, the Board proceeded
to hear this matter by way of a telephone conference. The parties
supplied the Board, in advance, with copies of the documents each
was relying upon. The "cost-savings" of this approach is
considerable. And, in my opinion, given the absence of any
significant evidentiary conflict, natural justice was served by
conducting the hearing in this way.
The facts are these. In compliance with its Collective
Agreement obligations, the College posted a seniority list. The
list was defaced by an unknown person or persons by writing in
beside the grievor's name, an allegation not worthy of repetition
in this award. When the grievor learned of this occurrence, he
promptly advised the College. The defaced list was removed and
inserted in a file. Unsuccessful efforts were made to locate the
culprit(s).
Subsequently, a professor returning from a leave asked for
a copy of the seniority list. Through the inadvertence of an
office person, a copy of the defaced list was given out. It is
clear that the grievor was embarrassed by this action. It is
equally clear that it resulted from the negligence of the
employee. It was not an intentional act by the employer to
3
harass, intimidate, embarrass or otherwise cause discomfort to
the grievor.
To avoid future problems, the employer now keeps the
originals in a secure file and only posts a copy. If the copy is
defaced, it is discarded. New copies are made from the originals.
This was an appropriate response to avoid a future problem.
The employer also destroyed the defaced list.
The employer sincerely regrets the incident.
In these circumstances we cannot find a Collective
Agreement violation. There is no lack of bona fides or
intentional conduct. The regrettable negligence does not warrant
a declaration of a contractual breach. Accordingly, the grievance
is dismissed.
DATED the 27th day of August, 19917~/ F~ _ j V
MARTIN TEPLITSKY,~. C.
Arbitrator
~ARRY STEPHENS ~
Union Nominee
DAVID C~ELLET~
College Nominee