HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-1681.Romanec.05-08-29 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# 2001-1681
UNION# 2002-0234-0022 [02C074] 2002-0234-0023 [02C075]
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Romanec) Union
- and -
The Crown In RIght of Ontano
(Mimstry of Commumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer
BEFORE Barry Stephens Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Stephen GIles
Gnevance Officer
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
FOR THE EMPLOYER Mike Bnscoe
Staff RelatIOns Officer
Mimstry of Commumty Safety and
CorrectIOnal ServIces
HEARING June 2, 2005
2
DeCISIon
The partIes agreed to an ExpedIted MedIatIOn-ArbItratIOn Protocol for the Maplehurst
CorrectIOnal Complex. It IS not necessary to reproduce the entIre Protocol here Suffice It to say
that the partIes have agreed to an expedIted process whereIn each party provIdes the vIce-chair
wIth wntten submIssIOns, whIch Include the facts and authontIes the party Intends to rely upon,
one week pnor to the heanng. At the heanng, oral eVIdence IS not called, although the vIce-chair
IS permItted to request further InformatIOn or documentatIOn. In addItIOn, If It becomes apparent
to eIther party or the vIce-chair that the Issues Involved In a partIcular case are of a complex or
sIgmficant nature, the case may be taken out of the expedIted process and processed through
"regular" arbItratIOn. Although IndIVIdual gnevors often wIsh to provIde oral eVIdence at
arbItratIOn, the process adopted by the partIes provIdes for a thorough canvaSSIng of the facts
pnor to the heanng, and leads to a fair and efficIent adjudIcatIOn process
The gnevance In thIS case raises matters related to allegatIOns that the employer faIled to act In
good faith wIth respect to a memorandum of settlement. The umon stated at the heanng that It
had made attempts to contact the gnevor by mall, and through the local's reVIew of ItS records, In
order to submIt further partIculars and InformatIOn, but no such InformatIOn was forthcomIng.
The umon also advIsed the Board that the gnevor was not currently employed by the Mimstry
3
HavIng revIewed the eVIdence presented and the submIssIOns of the partIes, It IS my VIew that
there IS no eVIdence of a breach of the collectIve agreement. As a result, the gnevance IS
dIsmIssed.
Dated at Toronto thIS 29th day of August, 2005