The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1988-0886.Morley.89-02-10· ' "" ONTARIO EMPLOYESrDELA COUHONNE :,' ' ;* ' CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO '.t.' .. :~: ?, ' GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSiON DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST. TORONTo, ONTARIO· MSO IZ8 - SUITE 2100 TELEPHONE/T£L~PHOf. IE 180. RUE DUNDAS OUEST. TORONTO, (ONTARIo) MSG IZ8 - eUREAU 2tO0 (41~) o88~/88 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: OPSEU (Morley) Grtevor - ~nd The Crown in Right: (Ministry of ~" ism & ....... Employer Before: P, Knopf Chairpe~$on E, O'Regan Member G, ?eckham Member For the Grievor: G, A. Richards Grievance Officer Ontario Public Se~uSce Employees Union the Employer: L, }{orton Staff .~.elations Officer Mar~agement Bosrd of Cabfnet This matter came before the Board by way of an application for an adjournment on January 9, 1989. The case had been long scheduled for hearing on this date. However, the Union was requesting an adjournment. The basis of the request was that the grievor was residing out of the country until the end of March 1989. She wanted the case adjourned until the beginning of April so the Board could deal with it at that time. We were told that neisher the Union nor the grievor wished to incur th~ expense of travellin~ back To Toronto from Costa Rica in order to have the case heard. The Union had advised management of this as~ soon as the pre-hearing had been arranged. However, management had opposed the request for the adjournment because of its concern for continuing liability being claimed by the grievor. The parties explained to us that the merits of the case would involve issues as to whether the grievor had resigned or was dismissed from her employment as a Hostess. She was a seasonal employee employed at the Queenston He, ights Restaurant. Normally, she would commence working in April and work through ThanksQiving weekend in October. In the 1988 season, her employment was terminated in September. The Union indicated that it would be alleging that the grievor has a riQht to recall and could expect to be recalled in mid-April 1989. Although t~e Union was not seeking any compensation for the period between October 1988 and April 1989, the Union did want to pursue a claim for compensation after the expected date of recall in the event that the Board could not issue a decision on the merits prior to that time. After havin9 heard representatives of both parties, the Board rendered an oral rulin§ at the hearinQ which is confirme~ by way of this order. The Board eKpressed its concern over the fact that the 9rievor had absented herself voluntarily from the jurisdiction of the Boar~. The grievor offered no explanation to the Board why she could not return to the juris'Jiction in sufficient time for the Board to hear the case o~ its merits and reader a ~ecision b.~fore April 1989. For example, we were given no reason why the grievor could not arrange to have her return ticket from Costa Rice altered so that she could come before the Board in February or March !989. We were also mindful of the fact that the Employer's only objectioq to the adjournment dealt with the potential of continuing liability beyonJ the possible day of recall in mid-April 1989. The Employer had no other objection to the adjournment other than concern over liability. Having all these concerns in mind, the Board o~dered that it was prepared to grant ~n adjournment to the Union on the condition that the Union and the grievor forego any claim for compensation beyond October 10, 1988, We are mindful of the Union's submission that it intends to urge the Board to grant reinstatement to the ~rievor and that remains to be determined by a Board dealing with the merits of the case. However, unless the Union and the grievor agree to forego any claims for compensation beyond OctoDer 10, 1988, the request for the adjournment is deemed [o be denied and the case should be deemed to be dism~sse~. However, if the U~ion an~ the §rievor abandon the claim for compensation beyond October I0, 1988, the adjournment is deemed to be allowed. Thereafter,. the matte~ is referred to the Registrar for the settin9 of continuation dates should they be required. But the hearinG shall be considered pre-emptory against the Union because of afl the circumstances of the case. The Union is to indicate its decision within 45 days of the release of the or0er. I~ the terms of the adgitional a~]journment are not accepted, the matter shall be deemed to have been ~)ism~ssed. Having re,)ar~ to all the above considerations, the Board has hereby grante~ the conditional a.~journment ~n accor3ance with the te~m$ set out above. DATED at Toronto, Ontario this lO'th .Jay of February, 1989. ,~ 0 Regan -i,]Member -~ G. Peckham - Member