HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-0755.Fabro.93-02-18 ONTARIO £MPLOY~$ DE LA COURONNE '
CROWN EMPI OYEES DE L'ON TARIO
GRIEYANCE CQMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUJTE 2~O0, TORONTO, ONTARIO. M50
180, RUE ~UNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO), MSG tZg FAC$IMILE/T~L~COPiE : (4~6) 326-1396
755/89, 757/89, 2152/87, 1695/87, 541/88, 773/88, 905/88, 906/88,
1100/88 740/89, 741/89, 754/89, 1342/89, 1374/90
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Un,er
TH~ CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT ~OARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Fabro)
Grievo~
The CroWn in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Industry, Trade & Technology)
Employer
BEFORE J. Roberts Vice,Chairperson
E. Seymour Member
D. Clark Member
FOR THE A. Ryder
GRIEVO~ Counsel
Ryder, Whitaker, Wright & Chapman
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR TH~_ P. Rusak
EMPLOYER Counsel
Mathews, Dinsdale & Clark
Barristers & Solicitors
HEARIN~
December 13, 1989 October 18, 1990
November 6, 15, .20, 1990 ~ April 26, 1991
May 8, 13, 1991 June 7, 1991
Septe~ber 14, 28, 1991 October 25, 28, 1991
November 9, 23, 1991 December 3, 1991
January 28, 1992 March 20, 1992
May 8, 1992 June 3, 4, 1992
JUly 6, 1992
August 12, 13, 18, 20, 1992
SUPPLEMENTAL ~WARD
On January 25, 1993, counsel for the grievor wrote to the Board
requesting a date for a hearing regarding two matters -- interest
and arrears -- that counsel characterized as outstanding in this
case.
In the opinion of the Board, however, it is functus officio
upon the matter of interest. .The question whether interest ought
to be awarded in this case was expressly addressed by the Board in
its executive session prior to the issuance of our award of
December 11, 1992. It was decided for a number of reasons that
this was not a case for an award of interest, and as a result we
did not include any interest in the remedial portion of our award.
Having finally decided the matter, we are not in a position to
receive and consider submissions relating to it.
We did, however, retain jurisdiction pending implementation of
the terms of our award. To the extent that the matter of arrears
relates to difficulties in implementation, we are in a position to
hear submissions thereupon and hereby direct the Registrar to set
down a date for a hearing limited to this matter.
DATED at London, Ontario, thislgth day of February, 1993.
s, Vice-Chairperson
"! Dissent" (Disseuc co follow)
E. Seymour~ Member
D. Clark, Member
o.P.$.E.U. (Fabro)
flUPPL~~ ~
Edward E. Se~ur (Un, on ~nee)
I have read ~he Supplemental Award ~ega~d~ng ~he above, and
~ha~ I mua~, w~h respect, d~sSen~ ~n par~.
I would have granted Un~on Co~seI's request ~o re-convene
hearing on both the ~nterest and arrears, and not ~ust the arrear~
as decided by the Majority. My notes indicate that Mr. Ryder,
his arg~ent at the conclusion o~ the original hearing, requested
the griever be made whole o~ request, which would certainly include
the awarding o~ interest.
It is for this reason that I believe interest should be paid on all
monies owing to Mr. Fabro from thetdate o~ issuance of the initial
award.
Edward E. ~eymour, Union Nominee