Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-1825.McKague&Innes.93-07-05 ONTARIO ( EMPLOYESDE LA COURONNE c= CROWN EMP(:v EES DE L'ONTARIO - . GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE 11111 SETTLEMENT . . REGlEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 2100 TORONTO ONTARIO. M5G lZ8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE (416) 326-1388 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 2100 TORONTO (ONTARIO) M5G lZ8 FACSIMILE /TELECOPIE (416) 326-1396 .J ,1825/92, 1596/92; 812/92 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (McKague/lnnes) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of ontario (Ministry of Health/Fleetwood Ambulance Service) Employer BEFORE: A Barrett Vice-Chairperson J. Carruthers Member D. Montrose Member FOR THE P. Munt-Madill UNION Counsel i Ryder, Whitaker, Wright & Chapman Barristers & SOlicitors FOR THE E. Keenan EMPLOYER Counsel \ Mathews, Dinsdale & Clark Barristers & Solieitors HEARING April 30, 1993 \ I ~_.- -- ..----.> ----+- - - ~---_.'- ~:~~, -- ~. ,'-' "' . \.::!L.. DEe I S 10 N \ ~ These are written reasons for an oral decision given at the hearing with respect to a union request for an adjournment, which was opposed by the employer 1.\ In the Spring of 1992 both grievors, Mr McKague and Mr .~ I \ Innes, requested extended leaves of absence from their jobs so that they could pursue volunteer work and travel in foreign lands Both leave requests were denied and grievances were filed by each grievor over the denial of the leave Then the grievors decided to - depart on their travels anyway and were therefore terminated from -- employment under the automatic termination provisions of the collective agreement, and a Letter of Understanding Both grievors then grieved their terminations All four grievances are before us The grievances were scheduled for hearing on April 30, 1993, and on that date the hearing convened but neither grievor was present Counsel for the union advised that she had been retained only two weeks previously and commenced an immediate search to find the grievors. She could not locate Mr. McKague, but found Mr. Innes who was in Ontario for a brief stay before returning to Africa Mr Innes told her that he could not attend the hearing on April 30th \ I due to a commitment to a volunteer job, but he expected to be back in Ontario by mid-July He also anticipated that Mr McKague would I be back at the same time Thus the adjournment request ( _. t-'- I' I, .. 2 Union counsel argued that we should grant the request because April 30th was the first scheduled hearing date, the issue of dismissal is of the utmost seriousness, and the union made its best efforts to locate the grievors, but M~ McKague was not even aware of the hearing date Furthermore, there would be little, if any, prejudice to the employer with respect to compensation or its I ability to present its case The leaves that were requested were unpaid leaves and -a few months' delay would not make any material difference Employer counsel responded that Mr McKague has (engaged in -' correspondence with the employer on a periodic basis since his departure and, if asked, they could have provided the union ,with an address and fax number for him Mr McKague's most recent letter dated April 18, 1993, advises that he will be staying in Israel until about the end of May, then travelling in Turkey, Syria, Jordan and Egypt, and concludes with the comment "I won't be returning to Canada for a while" In an earlier letter dated July j 30, 1992, Mr McKague advised that he would be leaving the country on September 1, 1992, and "I will therefore leave my request to be settled between the union and yourself and the GSB arbitrator when they get around to hearing the case" ~hus employer counsel argued that Mr McKague does not seem to be very concerned about processing his grievance He has not kept in touch with the union to advise of his whereabouts and seems to feel the matter can be settled without his presence The employer also' contended that it would suffer financial prejudice from the delay because if the i -- ( (. ....\ .. 3 grievors were reinstated they would require more re-tr~ining prior to being put to work, and the negotiated ratios of full~time to part-time employees are dis.turbed by the absence of these two i grievors, with financial consequence~ We decided to grant the union an adjournment on certain strict terms, primarily because it was a first scheduled ~earing date and we believe by the terms of the adjournment we can prevent prejudice to the employer. Accordingly, the hearing was adjourned to August 25, 199 3, which isa peremptory date to the union Union counsel is to contact the grievors immediately, advise them of the new -- hearing date and r~quest instructions forthwith about their intentions to return. for the hearing Union counsel is to advise employer counsel and this Board as soon as she has instructions whether or not the union intends to proceed on August 25th and whether or not the grievors will be present If at the heari~g the employer can prove financial prejudice as a result of the delay, we will make an order rectifying that prejudice, should the grievors be successful with their grievances We remain seized of jurisdiction I Dated at Toronto this 5th day of JU~ A 6 ice-Chairperson ~~4 V' ~ C_~:r:.J;:.~:ther8, Member ~ '~ ~5- ~ ---.:::::::::=- D Montrose ,~ Member