HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-1892.Moloney.10-03-19 Decision
Commission de
Crown Employees
Grievance
règlement des griefs
Settlement Board
des employés de la
Couronne
Suite 600 Bureau 600
180 Dundas St. West 180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396 Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB#2008-1892
UNION#2008-0368-0088
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Moloney)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFOREVice-Chair
Barry Stephens
FOR THE UNION
Scott Andrews, Frank Inglis
Grievance Officers
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Gary Wylie, Laura McCready, Bart Nowak
Staff Relations Officers
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
HEARINGMarch 4, 2010.
- 2 -
Decision
[1]The parties have agreed to an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol. It is not
necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol here. Suffice it to say that the parties have agreed to a
?True Mediation-Arbitration? process, wherein each provides the Vice-Chair with submissions,
which include the facts and authorities each relies upon. This decision is issued in accordance
with the Protocol and with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement, and is without prejudice or
precedent.
[2]In early 2008 the grievor made a request for a three-week leave of absence to be taken in
July and August 2008 in order to perform relief work in Mali as part of a program organized by
Hands Across the Nations. She also requested vacation time to attend a three-day training
session related to the Mali work that was to be held in June 2008. The grievor alleges that the
employer failed to respond to her requests for leave in a timely fashion, and that the manner in
which her requests were handled caused her considerable stress and eventually caused her to be
absent from work for medical reasons. She also alleges that the employer?s actions after she
commenced her medical leave were improper.
[3]The employer?s response to the grievance is that considerable efforts were made to assist
the grievor in obtaining the time off, and various questions were raised about the grievor?s
motivations, and her use of sick leave around the time in question.
[4]The issues involved in this matter raise questions of credibility, context, and motivation
on both sides. The evidence presented so far is insufficient to enable a True Mediation-
Arbitration decision, and the issues at play are matters I am not prepared to rule on after having
- 3 -
reviewed the evidence in the informal process of the mediation-arbitration session. I have
considered whether this matter should be referred to an Expedited Arbitration hearing, in
accordance with Paragraph 7.3 of the Local Mediation-Arbitration Protocol. However, it is my
view that the only way to get to the bottom of the grievance is to have the two main protagonists,
the grievor and her manager, testify in full and be subject to cross-examination. The grievor?s
allegations and the employer?s response give rise to issues of credibility and motivation too
complex be adequately canvassed in the Expedited Arbitration process contemplated by the
Protocol. For that reason, it is my view that this matter should be referred to Joint File Review
for a full hearing, in accordance with Paragraph 8.11 of the Protocol. I am not seized with this
matter.
th
Dated at Toronto this 19 day of March 2010.
Barry Stephens, Vice-Chair