HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-3586.Prevost et al.06-12-08 Decision
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas Sl. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
reglement des griefs
des employes de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. : (416) 326-1388
Telec. : (416) 326-1396
Nj
~
Ontario
GSB# 2003-3586,2004-1654
UNION# 2003-0411-0092,2004-0411-0075
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
BETWEEN
BEFORE
FOR THE UNION
FOR THE EMPLOYER
HEARING
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Prevost et al.)
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Richard Brown
Ed Holmes
Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
Simon Heath
Counsel
Ministry of Government Services
December 6,2006.
Union
Employer
Vice-Chair
2
Decision
This group grievance alleges correctional officers at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Center have
not been properly paid for attending muster. The matter was first scheduled for hearing on
December 19, 2005. Continuation dates were set for April 26 and September 26,2006. On each
of these occasions, the parties endeavored to reach a settlement but to no avail. On September
26, they agreed the next hearing date would be utilized to argue the legal question of whether
time spent at muster is time for which pay is owing under the collective agreement. They also
agreed to leave all remedial issues to be addressed after the resolution of another grievance
dealing with meal breaks.
A hearing notice for December 6, 2006 was issued by the Registrar on October 27, 2006.
The union appeared on December 6 prepared to argue the entitlement issue as agreed. Counsel
for the employer attended, without a representative of the Ministry of Correctional Services and
Community Safety, and requested an adjournment. Employer counsel stated his instructions did
not permit him to proceed with argument in the absence of his client. He noted settlement
discussions between the parties had continued after the last hearing date and might lead to a
resolution of the grievance. Other than the possibility of settlement, he offered no explanation for
being unable to address the legal issue scheduled for argument. The union opposed the request
for an adj ournment.
I am perplexed by the employer's conduct in this case. The parties agreed in September
to present legal argument on the next hearing date. The employer has now resiled from that
agreement without providing an adequate explanation. Such conduct runs the risk of
undermining the integrity of the arbitration process.
Despite this concern, I have decided not to hear submissions on an issue which counsel
lacks instructions to argue. The adjournment is granted on the condition this question be argued
by way of teleconference at 8:30 a.m. on January 18,2007.
Issued at Toronto the 8th day of December 2006