HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-1630.Union Grievance.03-05-13 Decision
Crown Employees Commission de ~~
Grievance Settlement reglement des griefs
Board des employes de la
Couronne
~-,...
Suite 600 Bureau 600 Ontario
180 Dundas Sl. West 180 rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396 Telec. (416) 326-1396
GSB# 1630/01
UNION# 02U014
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Umon Gnevance) Grievor
- and -
The Crown In RIght of Ontano
(Mimstry of CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer
BEFORE Ken Petryshen Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Nelson Roland
Ryder Wnght Blair & Doyle
BarrIsters and SOlICItorS
FOR THE EMPLOYER Sunee1 Bahal and Len HatzIs
Counsel
Management Board Secretanat
HEARING Apnl 9 2003
2
DECISION
The general Issue before me IS whether a sIgmficant number of employees at the Toronto
West DetentIOn Centre ("Toronto West") are entItled to be paid for theIr ShIft commencIng on
November 6 2001 When employees dId not report for work on that day the Employer filed an
unlawful stnke applIcatIOn wIth the Ontano Labour RelatIOns Board. The Umon filed an
applIcatIOn under sectIOn 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act In a Memorandum of
Settlement dated December 17 2001 ("the Memorandum") the partIes agreed to wIthdraw theIr
respectIve applIcatIOns and also agreed that "Vice-Chair Petryshen wIll be seIzed wIth
determInIng the employees' entItlement to pay If any for the ShIftS In questIOn on November 6
and 7 2001 " The partIes also agreed In the Memorandum that the partIes "are commItted to
an expedItIOus resolutIOn of the Issue of the employees' entItlement to pay"
On Apnl 2, 2003 dunng a conference call, counsel for the Umon requested that the
heanng scheduled for the folloWIng day be adjourned because Mr D PIckett, one of hIS
advIsors, was III and unable to attend. Counsel IndIcated that thIS request would be made for
subsequent heanng dates IfMr PIckett remaIned unable to attend due to Illness Mr PIckett had
been hospItalIzed recently and It was unclear when he would be dIscharged. When they had
completed theIr submIssIOns, I advIsed counsel that the heanng scheduled for the folloWIng day
would be adjourned due to the relatIvely recent and unexpected hospItalIzatIOn ofMr PIckett. I
also advIsed counsel that the absence ofMr PIckett due to Illness, by Itself, was not a sufficIent
basIs In the CIrcumstances for adjournIng future heanng dates, partIcularly SInce the Umon had
three other Local Umon ExecutIve board members avaIlable to Instruct counsel I IndIcated to
3
counsel that the heanng would proceed on Apnl 8 2003 even IfMr PIckett were stIll unable to
attend. ThIS rulIng IS reflected In a wntten decIsIOn dated Apnl 3 2003
When the partIes attended at the GSB on Apnl 8 2003 Mr PIckett was not present. He
was stIll In hospItal and unavaIlable to the Umon. For reasons not relevant to the Issue now
before me, the matter was adJ ourned for the remaInder of that day When the heanng resumed
on Apnl 9 2003 counsel for the Umon made an opemng statement, followed by an opemng
statement from counsel for the Employer After heanng the Employer's perspectIve on Mr
PIckett's Involvement In the relevant events, counsel for the Umon agaIn requested that the
matter be adjourned untIl Mr PIckett was able to attend or was avaIlable to the Umon. GIven
what counsel perceIved as the promInent role ofMr PIckett In the relevant events, he argued that
It was necessary to at least have Mr PIckett aVailable for consultatIOn In order for the Umon to
properly conduct ItS case Counsel for the Employer took the posItIOn that Mr PIckett's absence
alone was not a basIs for adjournIng the heanng. On Apnll0 2003 at the commencement of
the heanng, I ruled orally wIth bnefreasons, that the Umon's request for an adjournment was
demed.
HavIng regard to counsels' submIssIOns and the nature of thIS case as dIsclosed In the
opemng statements, I was not convInced that thIS matter could not proceed at all In the absence
ofMr PIckett, gIven the presence of the three other Local Umon executIve board members as
advIsors By agreement of the partIes the Umon wIll call ItS eVIdence first. The testImony of ItS
wItnesses IS Intended to provIde a context for the events of November 6 2001 and wIll address
what occurred on that day The partIes antIcIpate that where entItlement to pay for an employee
IS In Issue, each such employee, approxImately mnety In number wIll have the opportumty to
testIfy In order to explaIn why he or she decIded not to work that day Mr PIckett, the PresIdent
4
of the Local Umon at the tIme was Involved In some of the relevant events, and thIS Involvement
was commented on dunng counsel for the Employer's opemng statement. Counsel for the
Employer dId suggest that Mr PIckett mIght not have acted appropnately In some Instances
It cannot be said that the Umon has a shortage of advIsors for thIS case As I IndIcated In
the decIsIOn dated Apnl 3 2003 the absence of one advIsor due to Illness, when others are
avaIlable IS not a sufficIent ground for grantIng an adjournment. In my VIew the Umon would
be prejudIced by Mr PIcket's absence only when there IS eVIdence dunng the course of the
heanng about Mr PIckett's conduct whIch IS dIsputed. ThIS would lIkely anse when the
Employer calls ItS eVIdence but conceIvably mIght also anse dunng the course of the Umon's
eVIdence If such a sItuatIOn anses dunng the heanng and the Umon IS stIll unable to have
access to Mr PIckett, the Umon can renew ItS adjournment request at that tIme My sense from
the opemng statements IS that such a development IS unlIkely to occur untIl the Employer calls ItS
eVIdence SInce It was my VIew that the Umon could call most, If not all of ItS eVIdence, wIthout
beIng prejudIced by Mr PIckett's absence, I demed the Umon's blanket request for an
adj ournment.
)
en Petryshen- Vice-