Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 89-05-25 lfC zq IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ~5~ CAMBRIAN COLLEGE (hereinafter referred to as "the College") -and- ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION (hereinafter referred to as .,'the Trade Union") AND IN THE MATTER OF A GRIEVANCE RELATED TO VACATION LEAVE ENTITLEMENTS (OPSEU #88C429) BEFORE: D. H. KATES, CHAIRMAN SANDRA NICHOLSON, UNION NOMINEE DAVID J. CAMELETTI, COLLEGE NOMINEE APPEARING FOR THE COLLEGE: MICHAEL A. HINES, COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE TRADE UNION: CHRISTOPHER M. DASSIOS, COUNSEL HEARD AT SUDBURY, ONTARIO ON MAY 25, 1989. DECISION This is a grievance relating to the vacation leave entitlements of employees employed by the College who work less than twelve (12) months. The Trade Union alleges that employees who work less than twelve (12) months share the same vacation leave entitlements as regular employees who work the full school year. The College takes the position that vacation leave should be pro rated on the basis of the duration of their work schedule. The Trade Union requested an adjournment of these arbitration proceedings in anticipation that an ambiguity would emerge in the application and interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Collective Agreement in dispute. To this end~ the Trade Union needed the attendance of Ms. S. Vallance, an OPSEU Representative, with respect to extrinsic evidence relating to the parties' negotiation of the provisions. Ms. Vallance was otherwise committed to a conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia. This grievance was filed on October 6, 1988 and was scheduled for arbitration in February, 1989. The Trade Union was aware well in advance of the hearing of the issues in dispute and the importance of extrinsic evidence in the advancement of its case. In that light, it omitted to subpoena Ms. Vallanee in - 2 - order to ensure her attendance at these arbitration proceedings. Indeed, another witness, Mr. Jay Jackson was subpoened (as we were advised) for the same purpose as Ms. Vallance but that individual's testimony was not considered helpful for the Trade Union' s purposes. At the hearing, The Board on accepted labour relations principles denied the request for the adjournment because of the Trade Union's omission to take reasonable measures available to it to ensure the appearance of Ms. Vallance. Had such a subpoena been issued and the witness failed to appear, of course, different considerations may very well have applied with respect to the request for the adjournment. After the Board denied the Union's request for an adjournment, the Trade Union withdrew the grievance. Counsel for the Trade Union requested that we note on the record that the withdrawal was on the basis that the evidence needed to proceed with the case was unavailable and therefore the Union was not conceding the merits of the issue raised in the grievance. The College asked the record note that the evidence was indeed available for purposes of proceeding and that the Union chose not to proceed. - 3 - For all the foregoing reasons, the grievance, in light of the Trade Union's withdrawal, is dismissed. Dated this 25th day of May, 1989. ~ "D H. Kates" Chairman · , "Sandra Nicholson" "David Cameletti"