HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-0378.Chapman.16-06-30 DecisionCrown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB#2011-0378
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Association of Management, Administrative and
Professional Crown Employees of Ontario
(Chapman) Association
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Treasury Board Secretariat) Employer
BEFORE Christopher Albertyn Vice-Chair
FOR THE
ASSOCIATION
Marisa Pollock
Goldblatt Partners LLP
Counsel
Nadine Blum
Goldblatt Partners LLP
Counsel
FOR THE EMPLOYER Susan Munn
Treasury Board Secretariat
Legal Services Branch
Counsel
HEARING June 16, 2016
- 2 -
Decision
[1] This is a complaint regarding the implementation of a Memorandum of Settlement
concluded on March 1, 2013.
[2] The Complainant contends that a permanent vacancy arose, pursuant to Paragraph
2.1 of the Memorandum of Settlement, to which she ought to have been assigned. The
Employer denies there was any permanent vacancy, or, if there was a vacancy, that the
Complainant had the required qualifications.
[3] A number of procedural arrangements have been made to expedite the hearing of
this matter, although no evidence has yet been presented. The last day of hearing was
on May 7, 2015.
[4] An intervening event has occurred. The Complainant’s employment was terminated
on February 9, 2016. The Union has grieved the termination. It has also grieved an
earlier disciplinary suspension issued to the Complainant. Likely the termination and
suspension grievances will be heard together. The Employer has denied both
grievances. The grievances have yet to be referred to arbitration, although that is likely
to occur soon.
[5] The Employer asks that the current grievance (“the Settlement grievance”) –
concerning the implementation of the Memorandum of Settlement – be deferred until
the termination grievance is determined. The reason for the request is that the
Settlement grievance will become moot if the Complainant’s termination grievance is
denied.
[6] The Union opposes the Employer’s motion. It submits that there is a possibility, but
no certainty, of the Settlement grievance becoming moot. Given the uncertainty, the
Settlement grievance should be allowed to continue in the ordinary course, to its
resolution. The Union argues that much time has already elapsed since the filing of the
Settlement Grievance and the Complainant should not have to wait a further period to
have it resolved. Labour relations disputes should be determined expeditiously, and any
deferral of the Settlement grievance would be counter to that objective.
[7] I recognize, as the Union submits, that there is no certainty that the Settlement
grievance will become moot. However, if the termination grievance is dismissed, it will
be moot. Continuing with the hearing of the Settlement grievance if this possibility is
realized will mean that time, effort and expense will have been used unnecessarily.
Further, as the Employer argues, if the Complainant were to be successful in the
Settlement grievance, the result could not be implemented until after the resolution of
the termination grievance, assuming the Complainant to be reinstated in employment as
a consequence of the arbitration of that grievance. Accordingly, nothing would be
gained by completing the Settlement grievance before the termination grievance is
determined.
- 3 -
[8] The Board has the power under s. 48(12)(i) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 SO
1995, c 1, Sch A “to make interim orders concerning procedural matters”. The
Employer’s request is such a matter. The Board should avoid inefficiencies in the
conduct of its hearings. As the Employer submits, where a proceeding can become
moot as a result of another proceeding, it makes sense to adjourn the proceeding. That
is the case for the Settlement grievance. It should await the outcome of the arbitration of
the termination grievance. That outcome will determine whether the Complainant
continues to be an employee in the Ontario public service and, therefore, whether the
Settlement grievance needs to be heard.
[9] Accordingly, I find that the arbitration of the Settlement grievance should be held in
abeyance. I therefore direct that:
a) the hearing scheduled for July 7, 2016 is cancelled;
b) this matter is adjourned sine die, pending the determination of the arbitration
of the Complainant’s termination grievance;
c) after that determination, the Union should advise the Registrar whether it
wishes to have this matter re-scheduled for hearing.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 30th day of June 2016.
Christopher Albertyn, Vice Chair