HomeMy WebLinkAboutDi Domenico 05-09-13 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
CENTENNIAL COLLEGE
- AND -
O.P.S.E.U.
(GRIEVANCES OF G. DI DOMENICO)
255902, 255903, 255905 SUPPORT
Before: Susan Tacon, Chair
Pamela Munt-Madill, Union Nominee
Robert Gallivan, Employer Nominee
Appearances:
For the Union: Nelson Roland, Counsel
For the Employer: Timothy Liznick, Counsel
THIS MATTER WAS RECONVENED ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2005 IN TORONTO
INTERIM RULING
An earlier interim ruling was issued in this matter on March 3, 2005, whereby the hearing
was adjourned sine die, subject to certain conditions which are usefully recounted.
1. The adjournment is granted sine die for one year from the date of this interim
ruling but may be scheduled for hearing within that time frame if the grievor's
medical condition permits.
2. Mr. Richards and Mr. Liznick are to exchange particulars, beginning with
Mr. Richards forwarding the union's particulars, as soon as possible.
3. Mr. Richards is to obtain detailed medical reports from the grievor's physician
regarding her medical condition and prognosis. The first report is to be obtained
forthwith and successive reports at three month intervals thereafter so as to
provide an ongoing understanding of the grievor's medical condition and
prognosis. The grievor is directed to provide to Mr. Richards a waiver permitting
such information to be released. The reports are to be provided solely to
Mr. Liznick, on a strictly confidential basis.
4. After the sixth-month report, Mr. Richards and Mr. Liznick are to discuss
reconvening the hearing at or about the one year mark of the adjournment. The
panel is to be canvassed as to suitable dates and a hearing date(s) is (are) to be
scheduled.
5. This adjournment is without prejudice to the positions the parties may take in this
matter when the hearing is reconvened in accordance with item 4.
We are satisfied that, in the circumstances, further orders should issue.
1. While item 2 in the March 3, 2003 interim ruling, as noted above, directed
the exchange of particulars, in view of the passage of time since then, the parties are
ordered to deliver particulars, according to the following schedule:
(a) by November 25, 2005, Mr. Roland (who is now acting for O.P.S.E.U.) is to
deliver, to Mr. Liznick, full particulars of the grievances;
(b) by January 27, 2006, Mr. Liznick is to deliver, to Mr. Roland, full particulars of
the College's response;
(c) by February 27, 2006, Mr. Roland is to deliver, to Mr. Liznick, reply particulars,
if any.
2. This matter is scheduled to be reconvened at 10:00 a.m., on May 4, 2006, at J.P.R.
Arbitration Mediation Centre Inc., Suite 400, 390 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario.
3. It is now some eighteen months after the sine die date noted in the March 3, 2003
interim ruling. Further, the basis for that sine die adjournment was the grievor's medical
condition. Items 1 and 3 in that earlier interim ruling address that issue.
Given the extensive delay, we direct the grievor to have each of her physicians provide,
to Mr. Roland, a report giving their medical assessment of her current medical condition
and prognosis, and, specifically, with respect to her ability, by May 4, 2006, when this
matter is scheduled to be reconvened, to withstand a legal proceeding in which she must
testify in direct and cross-examination. These reports must be provided to Mr. Roland by
February 27, 2006.
Copies of the reports are to be provided, by Mr. Roland, to Mr. Liznick on a strictly
confidential basis.
4. Should the grievor fail to have these reports provided to Mr. Roland by February 27,
2006, or, if the medical assessments do not assert that the grievor will be able to testify in
direct and cross-examination by May 4, 2006, the parties are free to raise a motion with
the arbitration panel with respect to the appropriateness of continuing this proceeding.
DATED this September 13, 2005.
~usan Tacon, Chair
"I concur"
Pamela Munt-Madill, Union Nominee
"I concur:
Robert Gallivan, Employer Nominee