HomeMy WebLinkAboutDixon 93-10-28 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
St. Lawrence College
(Employer)
- and -
OPSEU
(Union)
And in the Matter of R. Dixon
Board: M. Brian Keller, Chairman
Terry Kearney, Union Nominee
Hugh John Cook, Employer Nominee
Appearances for the Employer: Ann Burke
Appearances for the Union: Richard Ellis
Hearing in Kingston on October 28, 1993
AWARD
The grievor filed a grievance dated November 9, 1992 alleging a
violation of the posting procedure in the collective agreement.
The grievance procedure was followed and a step 3 response sent
on March 23, 1993 and received on March 29.
A notice refering the matter to arbitration was sent to the
President, but addressed to the Ontario Skills Development Office
(OSDO) in Kingston, by letter dated April 5, 1993. The letter
was picked up by Ms. Sue Aylesworth of OSDO on April 14 and
forwarded to the President.
The employer submits the matter is out of time in that the notice
had to be given, under Article 18.1.1. of the collective
agreement by April 8, 1993. It also submits that the notice was
inappropriately sent in that it was sent to OSDO and not to the
appropriate office of the College.
The union argues that the Board should find a distinction in the
words "receipt" and "given" in Article 18.1.1. and that notice
was sent to the office where the grievor was employed and it was
therefore sent properly.
Time limits in this collective agreement are mandatory. They may
not be extended. As well, due dilligence must be followed in the
processing of a grievance.
In reviewing the evidence, it is clear that even if the Board
would accept the proposition of the union, which we are not
prepared to do, that one has to distinguish between "receipt" and
"given", the only fact before us is that it was received by Ms.
Aylesworth on April 14, beyond the time limits in the collective
agreement. The letter is dated April 5, but there is no evidence
of when it was sent. We can not conclude that it was sent on
April 5 merely because it bears that date. On the basis of the
evidence before us, we must conclude that the grievance is
untimely.
Given the disposition of this matter there is no need to deal
with the employer's second argument.
The grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Nepean this ~ day of ~ ,~v~ 1993.
M.B. Keller, Arb±trator
For tho Board