Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-3143.Millar.04-03-24 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# 2002-3143 UNION# 2003-0530-0014 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (Millar) Grievor - and - The Crown In RIght of Ontano (Mimstry ofCommumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer BEFORE Manlyn A. Nairn Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION Ed Holmes Ryder Wnght Blair & Doyle BarrIsters and SOlICItorS FOR THE EMPLOYER Yasmeena Mohamed Semor Counsel Management Board Secretanat HEARING March 24 2004 2 Intenm Order ThIS gnevance concerns the non-renewal of an unclassIfied contract. As noted In an Intenm order dated October 22, 2003 the partIes are agreed that I have the JunsdIctIOn to hear and determIne the matter ThIS heanng ongInally convened on June 5 2003 At that tIme the matter was adJourned because of Issues of representatIOn between the gnevor and OPSEU The matter reconvened on October 21 2003 On that day the partIes attempted to medIate a settlement of the gnevance Those efforts were not successful At the conclusIOn of the day folloWIng representatIOns by the partIes, certaIn orders wIth respect to productIOn were made whIch are set out In the Intenm order dated October 22, 2003 That order also noted that eIght heanng days were to be scheduled In consultatIOn wIth the partIes ContInUatIOn dates were set. A notIce of proceedIng was forwarded by the Board to the partIes on November 3 2003 The matter was set to reconvene on March 23 24 Apnl 1 2, 13 14 and May 5 and 17 2004 On March 23 2004 the gnevor dId not attend the heanng. Counsel for OPSEU understood the gnevor's absence to reflect the Issue of representatIOn nghts, that OPSEU was seekIng her commItment to work wIth counsel retaIned by OPSEU and not through or wIth an agent. An adJournment was granted. I ruled that the matter would reconvene the folloWIng scheduled day March 24 2004 If the gnevor was absent I advIsed OPSEU that I would be Inqumng as to whether or not It Intended to proceed wIth the heanng of the gnevance I further advIsed the partIes that no further adJournment would be granted based on any Issue of representatIOn. The umon undertook to commumcate the rulIng to the gnevor The matter reconvened on March 24 2004 At that tIme the Board and the partIes were In receIpt of a letter from the gnevor faxed to the Board on or about 9 04am that mormng. The letter sets out two concerns The gnevor asserts that she dId not receIve proper notIce of the scheduled heanng dates and that umon counsel faIled to send her documentatIOn and requested 3 InfOrmatIOn In a tImely way The letter requests that the heanng commence on Apnl 1 2004 In order that she may be gIven an opportumty to be present. I heard the representatIOns of the partIes WhIle the umon advIsed that It demed and would vIgorously defend the allegatIOns contaIned In the letter It argued that the adJournment ought to be granted to Apnl 1 2004 as there would be no substantIal preJudIce to the employer The employer opposed the adJournment takIng the posItIOn that It was an abuse of process and would sIgmficantly preJudIce the employer I ruled orally that I would allow the adJournment of to day's date These are my reasons The umon provIded me wIth copIes of correspondence It asserted were forwarded to the gnevor whIch refute her claims made In the letter and referred to other commumcatIOns wIth the gnevor to the same effect. The umon also asserted that umon counsel met wIth the gnevor on March 11 2004 to further prepare for the heanng, at whIch tIme the gnevor IndIcted that she had not receIved notIce of the heanng dates When those dates were provIded to her the umon asserted, the gnevor dId not IdentIfy any problem anSIng from any delay In reCeIVIng the notIce or any documentatIOn that would Interfere wIth her abIlIty or readIness to attend on those days The posItIOn of the umon on the allegatIOns made by the gnevor has not been tested here I have not heard from the gnevor and, In the normal course, a heanng would be convened In order to determIne whether any asserted lack of notIce was sufficIently establIshed so as to warrant any delay In the heanng process In thIS case however the gnevor asks that the heanng commence on Apnl 1 2004 She ObvIOusly has notIce of that date and has IndIcated her IntentIOn and abIlIty to attend on that date That obvIates any need to address any Issue of notIce In thIS proceedIng. I therefore am allowIng the request. ThIS matter IS adJourned and wIll now convene at 10 OOam, Thursday, April 1, 2004 at Suite 600, 180 Dundas Street West, Toronto, Ontario for the purpose of heanng the eVIdence and representatIOns of the partIes WIth respect to the Issues anSIng out of the gnevance filed. 4 Dated at Toronto thIS 24th day of March, 2004