HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-0951.Van Laere.93-02-02
~
" -
\ ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L 'ONTARIO
1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT ' ,
REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 2100 TORONTO ONTARIO M5G lZ8 TELEPHONEiTELEPHONE (-1161 326.1388
180 RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 2100 TORONTO (ONTARIO) M5G lZ8 FACSIMILE TELECOPIE (.J16) 326-1396
951/92
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Van Laere)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFORE B Fisher Vice-Chairperson
FOR THE L Yearwood
GRIEVOR Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE A pruchnicki
EMPLOYER Grievance Officer
Ministry of Correctional Services
HEARING January 22, 1993
.
.
~
Page 2
When this matter came up for expedited hearing the Union requested an
adjournment on the grounds that the grievor was not present. It was determined that the grievor
had been duly notified of the hearing date and had made no attempt whatsoever to advise his
Union representative before the hearing date of any Inability to attend the hearing. Since the
adjournment was contested it was determined at the hearing that the request for adjournment was
to be denied because the grievor had been given reasonable notice and the Union had failed to
provide an adequate explanation as to why the grlevor failed to show up. I noted at the time and
I wish to note In writing that this Is in no way to be construed as a negative comment on the Union
presenter rather it is the grievor's responsibility to advise the Union which he failed to do.
This grievance concerned the question as to whether or not a verbal 'statement
made by the grievor's supervisor constituted discipline. The Employer's position was that the
comment was non-disciplinary in nature and therefore Is not grieveable.
Upon the express undertaking by the employer to the Board that the events of the
day In question namely April 2, 1992 were not Intended to be disciplinary at the time nor would
be relied upon in future proceedings as disciplinary, I upheld the preliminary objection of the
Employer and therefore the grievance is dismissed. !
Dated at Toronto this 2nd day of February, 1993 ~
I /
6'
; !
BARRr B;J"fISHER
'/
ill
/ /,.'
j
.,
,