HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-0826.Union.89-02-15 CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTAR~O
GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
SE~LEMENT R~GLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
~0 DUNDAS STREET ~EST, TO~NTO, ONTARIO. MSG ~Z8 -SUtTE 2f~ TELEPH~E/T~L~PHONE
180, RUE OUNDAS OUES~ TORONTO. (ONTARIO) MOG 1Z8- BUR~U ~ [4f6) 5~.~8
0826/88
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between: OPSEU ~Un]on
Orlevor
- and -
The C~own
~Ministr? of Correc~.on~l ~e~vice$)
Employer
Before: N, V, Dissanayake V~ce-Chairper$on
,.,vba~n Member
H. Knigh~ Member
Fo~ the Gmievom: R, $Zephenson
,..o,lnse t
This is' a union gri~vancu a,i',~ing a conui-aventio~i
~rticle i8.i of t~e col].,=c'ziv,~ sgresme;'~t.
After the counsel ~or the gr2,::'¥'o~, had complened his
opening statement, 'Mr. Ba. nedic~ for the Employer,
raised two issues. First, it was contended that the
Employer was naken by surprise by ~he bz-oad nature
'was snaUed tha~ ~rom ~he diScussloY~s Lr~el took place
~he course o[ the grievance puocedure. Uhe 'Employer had
understood the issue ~o be a much narrower one. Ii~ the
circumstance, Mr. Benedlut submitL~d ti~at the Employer
was unable to proceed winh ~he nearing, Accordingly he
sought an adjournment. In addition, Counsel for the
Employer submitted that insuf ~icmen% particulars had
been provided wiuh regard to uhe alleged violation of
the collective agreemen5 and requested 5hat the Board
direc5 the union to puovide further par~.icuiars.
Counsel for %ne union disagree~i '~ha2 she
discussions during +~,~= grievance procedure could liave
led the Employer %o i;easoLaDl'3 believe shes nhe union '
was taking a position a~L~' t~a;':.,-~,~.'~ ~ i~: cl,a~t cla]med c.n ,.
abou% %he possible delay zha% may be caused by an
adjournment. However', counsel ve:y grudgingly agreed
an adjournment, p~ovided a i~%her hearing could be
scheduled wizhin a reasonab!= nime. On the question of
parLicuiars, counsel maintained that adequate
par5icuiars had been provided.
grievance, taken %ogether w~ui~ 5he par%iculars disclosed
in the course o~ union counsei's opening sBatemen~ was
sufficien5 to permit the Emi31oyer to pre,are i'ts case.
Accordingly, the Board declined ~',o make a direction uo
provide further' Dart~cuiar£.
In accordance wi%h the agreement reached at the
hearing, this mat~er is adjourned to a date to be fixed
by the Registrar in consultation wish the D~rties.
This panel c.f nhe Board is non seized of this
matter, which is hereby referred to the Registrar for
re-scheduling.
Nimal V. Dissanayake
Vice-Chairperson