HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-2336.Sparkes.92-07-17 ONTARIO EMPL 0 YES DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPL OYEES DEL'ONTARIO
GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT R~GLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
IBO DIJNOAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. MSG [Z8 TELEPHONE/T~LEC,~ONE. (4 1~; 326- 1388
180, RUE DUtqOA.S OLDEST, BLIREALJ 2100, TORONTO ~ONTAFIIO}, MSG 1Z$ FACSIMILE/T~L'~COPiE ... {416) 325-1596
2336/91
IN THE. MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN ~HPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING &CT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEHENT BOARD
OPSEU (Sparkes)
Grievor
- &ad-
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Correctional Services)_' ~ --
Employer
BEFORE: O. Gray ' Vice-Chairperson
I. Thomson Member
D. Montrose Member
FOR THE W. Grenada
GRIEVOR Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE J. Benedict
EMPLOYE~ Manager, staff Relations & Compensation
Ministry of Correctional Services -
HEARING June 16, 1992
AWARD
The following ruling was delivered orally at the hearing held on June 16, 1992
in this matter:
The employer seeks an adjournment today. Its representative says that
yesterday he and the union's representative worked on an agreement to adjourn.
He was advised that the terms of a tentative agreement had been read to the
griever over the telephone. Changes were proposed as a result of her input. The
employer representative had agreed to those changes. He was told that the grievor
wanted to see the agreement. Both representatives agreed to meet this morning
for that purpose. There was no discussion about what would happen ff the griever
did not approve the agreement.
The employer's representative says he tmderstoed he was coming to the.
hearing to "sign this off." As a result, he released v~itnesses and did not complete
his preparation for hearing. The union's representative acknowledges that it was
not unreasonable for the employer representative to have drawn the conclusions
he did. She nevertheless asks that we press the hearing ahead today. She says
that the matter was in the hands of the grievor, and that she came prepared to
proceed.
In the circumstances, the parties' representatives ought to have discussed
whether the hearing would go ahead if the agreement was not "signed off." They
did not. Both parties bear some responsibility for the results of that oversight. In
the circumstances, though, and particularly in view of the union's concession that
it was not unreasonable for the employer representative to come to the conclusion
he did;the employer is entitled to an adjournment.
The hearing in this matter is adjourned to a date to be set by the Registrar..
This panel is not seised.
Dated at Toronto this ~Tth day of July, lqq2c,'
Owen V. Gray, Vice-Chair
~ ~"~-_~..'
i.
D. Montrose, Member