HomeMy WebLinkAboutLum 98-04-01 IN' THE MATTER OP AN' ARBITRATION'
BETWEEN:
George Brown College
- and -
OPSEU
(Grievance of Eva Lure)
Before: William Kaplan, Chair
F. Cowell, College Nominee
S. Murray, Union Nominee
Appearances
For the Employer: Ann Burke
Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie
Barristers & Solicitors
For the Union: Richard Blair
Ryder Wright Blair & Doyle
Barristers & Solidtors
This matter proceeded to a hearing in Toronto on March 25, 1998.
Introduction
On April 15, 1997, Eva Lum, a long service employee, was advised that her
employment with George Brown College would be terminated effective the following
day. A grievance was filed on June 19, 1997, and the employer immediately put the
union on notice that it would be taking the position that the grievance was untimely
and inarbitrable. That matter proceeded to a hearing in Toronto.
The Collective Agreement
It is useful to set out the relevant provisions of the collective agreement:
18z2.1 If the grievor fails to act within the time limits set out at any complaint
or Grievance Step, the grievance will be considered abandoned.
18.72 An employee who claims he/she has been dismissed or suspended
without just cause shall, within fifteen (15) days of the date he/she is advised
in writing of his/her dismissal or suspension present his/her grievance in
writing
The Employer's Objection
In brief, the employer took the position that the grievance was inarbitrable because it
had been filed out of time. The time lines in the collective agreement were, counsel
argued, mandatory. Moreover, there was nothing in the Colleges Collective
Bargaining Act which empowered a board of arbitration to exercise discretion to
relieve against missed time lines. That being the case, there was simply no basis, in
the employer's submission, for the Board to relieve against the missed tixne lines.
Employer counsel provided the Board with a number of authorities to this effect.
Union Submissions
In the union's submission, this was an appropriate case for the Board to relieve
against the missed time lines. The grievor testified explaining some of the
circumstances - from her perspective - that led to her discharge as well as the reasons
that she did not file her grievance in a timely way. Simply stated, she did not feel that
she would be fairly and properly treated by either the union or the employer.
Accordingly she consulted a lawyer. That took some time to schedule, and after that
consultation made arrangements to file a grievance, a grievance that was only
technically out of time. Union counsel took the position that the grievor has been an
exemplary employee for more than a decade and given the seriousness of the
grievance - it related to her termination from employment - the Board could and
should take jurisdiction with respect to it. It was quite dear on the evidence, the
union pointed out, that the grievor took steps to deal with her termination, and those
steps led to a grievance, one that union counsel urged us to hear on the merits.
Decision
Having carefully considered the evidence and submissions of the parties, we are of
the view that the employer's preliminary objection must be upheld and the grievance
dismissed. The time lines in the collective agreement are mandatory, and there is
nothing in the collective agreement or the governing statute which, authorizes us to
exercise discretion to relieve against missed time lines. The authorities on this point
are legion. Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, the grievance is dismissed.
DATED at Toronto this 1st day of April 1998.
William Kaplan, Chair
"F. Cowell"
F. Cowell, College Nominee
"S. Murray"
S. Murray, Union Nominee