HomeMy WebLinkAboutP-2017-1750.Morris.18-09-06 Decision
Public Service
Grievance Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission des
griefs de la fonction
publique
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
PSGB# P-2017-1750
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF ONTARIO ACT
Before
THE PUBLIC SERVICE GRIEVANCE BOARD
BETWEEN
Morris Complainant
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE Marilyn A. Nairn Vice-Chair
FOR THE
COMPLAINANT
John Hasted
FOR THE EMPLOYER Daria Vodova
Treasury Board Secretariat
Legal Services Branch
Counsel
REPRESENTATIONS
RECEIVED
September 5, 2018
- 2 -
INTERIM DECISION
[1] In its Form 2 response, the Employer raised a preliminary objection with respect
to the timeliness of this complaint. It takes the position that the Board has no jurisdiction
to hear and determine the complaint. In its Form 2 it outlined the alleged facts and
submissions on which it intended to rely in support of its position.
[2] This matter was scheduled for hearing on September 6, 2018. On August 20,
2018 the parties were advised that, at that hearing, the Board would hear the parties’
evidence and submissions with respect to the timeliness issue. They were directed to
be prepared to call their evidence and make submissions with respect to that issue at
that time.
[3] By email late on September 5, 2018 the complainant advised that he would be
unable to attend the hearing the following day. The basis for the complainant’s request
to adjourn was that he mistakenly believed the hearing to be scheduled for Friday, he
was out of town, and therefore unable to attend. He asked that the hearing convene
later this month. The Employer agreed to an adjournment but asked that the hearing be
conducted in writing given the circumstances. It is content to rely on the asserted facts
and submissions set out in its Form 2 response as the basis for its objection.
[4] The complainant’s explanation for requiring an adjournment falls far short.
Hearing dates are set with the consent of the parties and parties are therefore expected
to be available on the scheduled date absent intervening and compelling circumstances.
The September 6, 2018 hearing date was set in October 2017 and a new hearing date
would likely be some months in the future.
[5] Having regard to these circumstances, the Board therefore directs as follows:
The complainant is hereby directed to respond in writing to the Employer’s
position by no later than Friday, September 28, 2018. That response is to
indicate whether the complainant agrees with the facts as asserted by the
Employer in its Form 2. If the complainant does not agree with the facts as
asserted by the Employer in its Form 2, the complainant is to set out the facts on
which he intends to rely in response to the Employer’s position that the complaint
is untimely. At the same time, the complainant is to provide the Board with his
position and submissions in writing with respect to the issue of whether the
complaint is timely and whether the Board has the jurisdiction to entertain the
complaint.
[6] Upon receipt of the complainant’s materials, the Board will determine next steps.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 6th day of September, 2018.
“Marilyn A. Nairn”
_______________________
Marilyn A. Nairn, Vice-Chair