Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-3490.Dupuis.18-09-11 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# 2014-3490; 2014-3658; 2014-3659; 2014-3660; 2014-3661; 2017-2396; 2017-2397 UNION# 2014-5112-0192; 2014-5112-0216; 2014-5112-0217; 2014-5112-0218; 2014-5112- 0219; 2017-5112-0250; 2017-5112-0251 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Dupuis) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer BEFORE Nimal Dissanayake Arbitrator FOR THE UNION Tim Hannigan Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Counsel FOR THE EMPLOYER Jonathan Rabinovitch Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel HEARING September 7, 2018 - 2 - Decision [1] The Board is seized with a number of grievances filed by Ms. Cassandra Dupuis, who is employed as a Correctional Officer. [2] Multiple dates were scheduled to deal with these grievances. A number of them were adjourned, one at the request of the employer, and others at the request of the union. On two further days hearings were scheduled and the parties attended at the Board. However, the arbitration hearing did not commence; the parties used the time attempting to resolve the grievances with my assistance as mediator. At this time none of the grievances have been resolved. As a result of the foregoing two days remain scheduled, February 1 and 25 of 2019. The instant hearing by teleconference was convened to deal with a disagreement between the parties on the scheduling additional hearing dates. [3] The union is of the view that four more days should be scheduled as soon as possible. Counsel argued that if scheduling of additional dates is postponed until February 2019, the proceeding, which has already been delayed, would be further delayed into the summer or fall of 2019. [4] The employer objected. Counsel took the position that no additional dates should be scheduled until the outcome of the two dates presently scheduled in February 2019 is known. Counsel expressed the employer’s concern that unnecessary costs would be incurred if dates are scheduled now, and are then cancelled, for example as a result of a settlement reached on the February dates. [5] I pointed out that there is an obvious way of addressing the concerns of both parties with no detriment to either. I ruled that the four additional days requested by the union could be scheduled in such manner, so that no cancellation charges would be incurred if those days are cancelled on or before February 25, 2019. I ruled that the Registrar of the Board would be directed to schedule the four earliest days mutually available to the parties and to the arbitrator (based on availability on arbdates.com), beyond 30 calendar days from February 25, 2019. - 3 - [6] The oral ruling set out above is hereby confirmed. The Registrar is directed to schedule four additional days in this proceeding on the terms set out at paragraph 5. [7] I remain seized. The instant proceeding will continue on the dates scheduled. Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 11th day of September, 2018. “Nimal Dissanayake” Nimal Dissanayake, Arbitrator