HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-1147.JM.18-02-06 Decision
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB#2016-1147
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
The Association of Management, Administrative and Professional
Crown Employees of Ontario
(JM)
Association
- and –
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE Jasbir Parmar Arbitrator
FOR THE
ASSOCIATION
Marisa Pollock
Goldblatt Partners LLP
Counsel
FOR THE EMPLOYER Felix Lau
Treasury Board Secretariat
Legal Services Branch
Counsel
SUBMISSIONS February 2, 2018
- 2 -
Decision
[1] In a decision dated November 22, 2017, I addressed the Employer’s motion that
this grievance be dismissed. For the reasons outlined therein, I held the following:
[47] Accordingly, in light of the Grievor’s non-attendance on August 4, 2017, I
order the following:
a. the union is to provide a copy of this decision to the Grievor, and file with
the Board proof of service. Delivery through email is sufficient, if the
Grievor has provided the Union with an email address as a contact
method.
b. this grievance is dismissed, unless the Grievor is able to demonstrate
good and sufficient cause for his non-attendance. Any such explanation,
along with any supporting documentation, must be filed with the Board no
later than 4:00 pm Friday, December 15, 2017.
c. I remain seized relating to any issues arising from implementation of this
decision.
[2] In accordance with my directions, the Union provided proof of service. It indicated
the Grievor was advised to provide the Union any explanation with supporting
documentation by 9:00 am December 15, 2017 to enable the Union to be able to file it
with the Board in accordance with the stipulated timeframe.
[3] On December 18, 2017, the Union provided the Board a copy of a document
provided to the Union by the Grievor via email at 3:43 pm on December 15, 2017. The
Union representative, who had left the office by that time, did not access his email and
retrieve this email until a later time.
[4] On its face, the document, dated December 14, 2017, appears to be on
Sunnybrook Health Sciences letterhead, and is from Dr. Michael Oultram, “outpatient
staff doctor for Sunnybrook psychiatric department”. It is unsigned.
- 3 -
[5] I asked the Union to make some inquiries and confirm whether Dr. Oultram is a
physician with Sunnybrook Hospital and whether the Grievor is currently his patient.
[6] On January 25, 2018, Union counsel provided the following information via email:
My assistant, [ ..], checked the College of Physicians and Surgeons of
Ontario and Sunnybrook Hospital websites and did not find a listing for
Michael Oultram. [She] also called Sunnybrook Hospital and was
advised that there was no Dr. Oultram working at Sunnybrook.
[7] In light of this information the Employer submits that the grievance should be
dismissed because no documentation was filed with the Board prior to 4:00 pm on
December 15, 2017 as stipulated in my earlier award.
[8] In the alternative, the Employer submits it should be determined the Grievor did
not demonstrate “good and sufficient cause”. The Employer expressed a number of
concerns about the sufficiency of this document, including that it is unsigned, does not
contain the doctor’s license number, and that the letterhead does not have any of the
Sunnybrook contact information. The Employer submits that this letter is not in fact
from a registered physician in Ontario, although it purports to be so.
[9] The Union made no submission, for what I view as very obvious reasons.
[10] I agree with both the Employer’s submissions.
[11] First, I note that where a decision holds that a grievance is dismissed unless
certain information is provided by a specific time, a party should be held to that standard
strictly (subject to a justifiable explanation for this failure). This is particularly the case
where the issue is dismissal of the grievance for failure to comply with the arbitral
process. In those circumstances, failing to meet the specific parameters set out in the
- 4 -
decision is just another indication there is no reason for the Board to think that the
Grievor will comply with the arbitral process in the future.
[12] Second, even if I were to consider this document that was submitted late, I have
grave concerns about the authenticity of this document for all the reasons outlined by
the Employer. It was in fact because the document on its face seemed a bit odd that I
asked the Union to make inquiries about ‘Dr. Oultram’. In the circumstances, I find the
Grievor has not demonstrated good and sufficient case for his non-attendance on
August 4, 2017.
[13] For all these reasons, the grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 6th day of February 2018.
“Jasbir Parmar”
Jasbir Parmar, Arbitrator