HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-0208.Fasciano.92-07-21 :' ONTARIO r-MPL O¥~$ DE LA COU~ONNE
~, .... CFIO WN EMPL 0 YEE$ DE L'ON TA RIO
GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT R~=GLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
;80 DUNDAS .STREET V,/EST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. MSG 1Z8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE: ~.4'/~ 326-~1388
1BO, RUE DUNDA~ OUEST, ~UREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIOL MSG ~Z8 FACS/t~ILE/T~LECOPIE .' [4 ~E) 326- f~96
20e/9z
IN THE Y~,TTER OF ~I ~R.BITI~TION
Under
THE CRO',~I"NEMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
~ OLBEU (Fasciano)
Grievor
- a~ -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Liquor Control Board of Ontario)
Employer
BEFORE: W. Low Vice-Chairperson
T. Browes-Bugden Member
D. Clark Member
FOR T~E C. Flood
GRIEVOR Counsel
Koskie & Minsky
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE R. Little
EMPLOYER Counsel
Hicks, Morley, Hamilton, Stewart, Storie
Barristers & Solicitors
HEARING July 3, 1992
RULIN~ AS TO ~DJOURNMENT_
This is a grievance from discharge. At the hour
appointed for the commencement of the hearing, the Griev0r, Mr.
Fasciano, had not appeared. We were advised by counsel for the
Union that he had spoken with the Griever last night and had been
advised by the Griever that he intended to be present at the
hearing today. We were also advised by counsel for the Union that
Mr. Fasciano had indicated that he wished to discharge the Union
and Union counsel and to retain new counsel to prosecute this
grievance on his behalf, and would be seeking an adjournment on
that basis as well. Mr. Fasciano,'not having appeared by 10:3.0~
counsel for the Union requested an adjournment of the hearing. The
request was opposed on behalf of the Employer.
There is no issue as to notice of the hearing. We are
advised that the Griever was notified as to the time and the place
for the hearing. There was a stated intention to appear at the
proceeding, and there is no evidence before us that the Griever has
deliberately chosen to force an adjournment by absenting himself,
although it is tempting to draw such an inference. A substantial
and incompensible prejudice would occur if the adjournment were not
granted, and we note that a first adjournment of this hearing,
which was scheduled for August 8, 1991 was on consent and appeared
to have been triggered by an offer made by the Employer.
Although the EmDloyer may experience some procedural
prejudice and additional expense, these are not matters that are
incompensible. The adjournment will therefore be granted. The
hearing is to be rescheduled to the first available date that this
Panel is able to convene, and a hearing date will be peremptory
upon the Griever only.
If the Griever is not able to show cause at the hearing
for his failure to appear today, the Panel, in determining the
grievance on its merits may, iDte~ a_~, use July 3, 1992, as an
end date for the Employer's liability to pay compensation, if any.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 21st day of July, 1992.
W. I.o~, ¥i ce-Chairperson
T. B'rowes-gugden~ Member
....
D. Clark, Member