HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 19-08-27IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 685
-AND-
ALGOMA UNIVERSITY
AWARD RE DISPUTES DATED:
MARCH 15, 2013 (2013-0685-0001)
APRIL 18, 2013 (2013-0685-0002)
JUNE 6, 2013 (2013-0685-0003)
SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 (2013-0685-0004)
MARCH 24, 2014 (2014-0685-0002)
JULY 30, 2014 (2014-0685-0001)
Arbitrator: Laura Trachuk
For Ontario Public Service
Employees Union, Local 685: David Wright
For Algoma University: Paul Cassan
AWARD
The Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 685 (OPSEU) has referred
six disputes to arbitration. Algoma University (the Employer) objects to
proceeding with these disputes for a number of reasons but primarily because of
the long period of time that has passed since they were first raised.
The six disputes date from 2013 and 2014 when the full-time faculty members at
Algoma University were represented by the Algoma University Faculty
Association (AUFA). AUFA merged with OPSEU in April 2017. At some point
after that OPSEU raised these matters with the Employer and was advised that
they were untimely. There is no dispute that OPSEU was advised that the
Employer did not consent to waive any time limits.
It is not clear that AUFA even filed grievances with respect to all six of these
disputes. One dispute does appear to have been advanced to a grievance and
scheduled for arbitration but then withdrawn. OPSEU sought to refer the others
to arbitration sometime in 2018. At that point the Employer agreed to my
appointment but reserved its right to make these objections.
A hearing was convened by conference call on August 26, 2019. OPSEU was
unable to provide an explanation for the delays because it was not the bargaining
agent at the time the disputes were raised. It had not negotiated the relevant
collective agreement which expired in 2015. It is apparent that if these matters
proceeded to hearing both parties would be prejudiced by the lack of
documentation and the unavailability of witnesses. Furthermore, having reviewed
the few materials that are available, it is not clear whether these disputes
continue to have any relevance.
I have determined that the Employer's objection to proceeding with the disputes
has merit. The six "grievances" should not be heard because of the extensive
delay in advancing them. Prejudice may be assumed with a delay of five or six
years but in this case there is also an acknowledged lack of necessary witnesses
and documentation. I can see no labour relations purpose that would be served
by proceeding. The six "grievances" are, therefore, hereby dismissed as
untimely.
August 27, 2019
Laura Trachuk
Arbitrator