HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-1436.Union.91-01-04. .~.~' ONTARIO EMP£oYE.~ DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPL 0 YEE$ OE t 'ON TA RIO
~ GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
tSO OUNDAS STREET WEST, TORONTO. ONTARIO. MSG ~Z8 - SUITE 2?O0 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE
'180, RuE OUNOAS OUEST, TORONTO. (ONTARIO) M5G tZ8- 8UREAU 2?O0 (416) 59e-O68a
1436/89
IN THE HATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CaOWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN:
OPSEU (Union Grievance)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFORE: M.B. Keller Vice-Chairperson
G. Majesky Member
D. Walkinshaw Member
FOR THE P. Chapman
GRIEVOR: Counsel
Ryder, Whitaker, Wright and Chapman
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE G. Picketing
EMPLOYER: Grievance Administrator
Human Resources Management
Ministry of Correctional Service~
HEARING: March 15, 1990
Interim Decision
At the outset of the hearing in this matter, a request for
adjournment was made by the employer. The request was objected to
by the union. . ~'
The Board was told by the employe~- that its' counsel was not
available to attend as he was involved in another matter before
another panel of the Board. That situation arose, we were told,
because counsel was of the opinion that the hearing in this matter
had been adjourned, by consent, at a pre-hearing meeting on
February 8, 1990. Counsel argued that as the problem arose because
of a misunderstanding, the adjournment should be granted.
For her part, counsel for the union objected strenuously to the
employer's request. Her version of what had taken place differed
from that of the employer. She offered to lead evidence to the
effect that no adjournment had been agreed to as suggested by the
e.mployer. A letter was given to'the Board by counsel for the union
that had been faxed to the employer the previous evening at 7 p.m.
-'It succinctly laid out the position of the union a, inter alia,
offered to agree to the request if the employer was prepared to pay
for the expenses of the union's witnesses who had already arrived
in Toronto from Smith Falls.
The work load of the Board is significant. As a result a policy of
putting adjourned cases on a separate list has been developed. This
is to ensure that all newly filed cases be heard by the Board as
early as possible. This means that requests for adjournment will
be scrutinized carefully when suSh a request is made during a
hearing to ensure that there are truly compelling reasons to accede
to the request· Furthermore, even when agreeing to grant an
adjournment the Board has, and reserves the right to exercise,
powers which could result in conditions being set as a quid pro
quo for the adjournment.
In the instant case, it was unfortunately clear that the employer
was not prepared to proceed. The Bo~d heard conflicting stories
as to what happened on February 8. Given the hour, and the fact
that the hearing would not be completed in one day in any event,
the Board determined that the adjournment would be granted.
However, given the full circumstances surrounding this matter, the
Board was not of the view that the union should be prejudiced by
the request of the employer. Accordingly, as a condition of the
adjournment, the Board , in rendering its unanimous decision
orally, ordered the employer to reimburse the union for all actual
costs incurred by their witnesses who were present at the hearing,
as well as all reasonable costs incurred for the attendance of
union counsel at the hearing.
.Nepean this 4th day of January 1991.
M. Br~~ce-chairperson
S~ Member