HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 06-05-09U0/11/VD 111LI U6: X50 rAll G1J+040+lt5L4 hL1U1 WU11A LArr UrrlUh
In the Matter of ars Arbitration
$etween
Providence Continuing Care Centre
St. Mary's of The Lake
(Hereinafter referred to as "the Employer")
And
Ontario Public Service Employees' Union — Vocal 483
(Hereinafter referred to as "the Union")
Regarding= Union Grievance
Sole Arbitrator: Felicity D. Briggs
For the Union. Peggy Smith, Counsel
For the Employer: Vincent M. Panetta, counsel
L[Ijuua
� wv�
U5/ll/Uta 1HLI Ut1: �StS YA3 15 L 3 F �4t5 ���SL4 hLIU1 JWllH Layy Ukk'li p
QUU4
On April 11, 2006, 1 issued a decision regarding the ince
of the Collective Agreement with rpretatton
p ct t® termination pay.
Subsequent to the relcase, Ms. resa Smith and Mr. Panetta, counsel for
the parties asked for a clarification of two points. The first was
that, at the hearing the parties agreed, as a fact, that the Employer
informed the Union that it was "geUin Out of e
g the business of
orthotics".
The second request was that I make clear that, at the hearing, the
Union argued that s. 4(2) of Reg. 288/01 applies in this instance
and ought to have led this Board to a find for the Union. All
arguments put forward by both the Employer and the Union were
considered and taken in account in the final result_
Dated in Toronto this 9" day of May, 2006.
Felicity D. Bri gs