The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007-0011.Egesi.11-01-26 Decision Commission de Crown Employees Grievance UqJOHPHQWGHVJULHIV Settlement Board GHVHPSOR\pVGHOD 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 7pO Fax (416) 326-1396 7pOpF GSB#2007-0011 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario (Egesi)Association - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Finance) Employer BEFOREVice-Chair Janice Johnston FOR THE UNION James McDonald Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP Barristers and Solicitors FOR THE EMPLOYER Peter Dailleboust Ministry of Government Services Labour Practice Group Counsel HEARINGJanuary 25, 2011. - 2 - Decision [1] This matter commenced before me on April 26, 2007. On that date the parties and Ms Karen Egesi, the complainant, signed a Memorandum of Settlement which resulted in the settlement of the two disputes which were before me at the time. One of the terms of the Memorandum was that it was to be kept confidential. I remained seized in the event that there were any difficulties with regard to the interpretation or implementation of the Settlement. [2] On July 23, 2009 the complainant sent a number of e-mails which the Ministry contends were a breach of the confidentiality provisions of the Memorandum of Settlement and which constituted inappropriate conduct on the part of the complainant. As a result an IT investigation was conducted which resulted in a report dated September 21, 2009. [3] From September 29, 2009 to February 5, 2010 the complainant was absent from work on sick leave. When she returned to work she was suspended for ten days by letter dated February 11, 2010. AMAPCEO filed a dispute on behalf of Ms Egesi challenging this suspension dated February 12, 2010. [4] The parties agree that I have jurisdictiRQWRGHDOZLWKWKHHPSOR\HU¶VDOOHJDWLRQ that Ms Egesi had breached the confidentiality provisions of the Memorandum of Settlement and the ten day suspension. These issues were scheduled on an expedited basis for March 12, 2010. On March 9, 2010 I received a letter from the complainant indicating, amongst many other things, that she would not be attending the hearing as she objected to being represented by AMAPCEO. The complainant filed complaints before the Ontario Labour ReODWLRQV%RDUGWKH³2/5%´ DOOHJLQJWKDW she had not been appropriately represented by the Association. [5] A hearing date before me was scheduled for July 23, 2010. This was adjourned as the parties were waiting to see the results of the proceedings before the OLRB. - 3 - [6] The proceedings at the OLRB were dismissed on August 31, 2010 and a request for reconsideration was dismissed on November 24, 2010. [7] The case before me was again scheduled for hearing on January 25, February th 1 and February 7, 2011. The parties appeared before me on January 25. At that time counsel for the Association indicated that they had been informed that the grievor did not wish to be represented by AMAPCEO. Counsel for the employer indicated that the complainant had informed them on Monday, January 17, 2010, that she would be commencing a three month medical leave and would not be attending the hearing. No medical documentation was provided in support of this requested leave. The employer has requested that the complainant provide medical documentation to justify her request. th counsel for [8] As the complainant did not appear at the hearing on January 25 the Association requested an adjournment. It was not disputed that the Complainant was aware of the proceedings and had known about them for some time. Although he th sought an adjournment of the January 25 hearing, counsel for the Association indicated that he would not object should the employer request that this adjournment EHSHUHPSWRU\XSRQWKHFRPSODLQDQW¶VDWWHQGDQFHDWWKHKHDULQJVFKHGXOHGIRU th February 7, 2011. Counsel indicated that the February 7 date was preferred over the st February 1 date as it would provide more time for the Association to notify the Complainant regarding the outcoPHRIWRGD\¶VSURFHHGLQJV Should the complainant chose to do so, it would also give her time to obtain and provide medical justification for her failure to attend at the proceedings on January 25th. [9] Counsel for the Ministry objected to the granting of an adjournment. He argued that the employer in this case had been very accommodating of the numerous adjournment requests which have been made. He suggested that the Complainant has no respect for the representation she has and is receiving from the Association. She has a complete lack of respect for the process in place for dispute resolution between the parties. She indicated that she was not going to show up and in fact she did not do so. Endless adjournments are costly and a waste of valuable resources. - 4 - [10] However, in the alternative, should I be inclined to grant the adjournment, employer counsel agreed that it should be peremptory upon tKHFRPSODLQDQW¶V attendance at the February 7, 2011 hearing. He requested that the Complainant be directed to provide medical documentation or another acceptable reason to justify her th failure to attend at the hearing on January 25. th [11] At the hearing on January 25, I ruled orally that in the circumstances I would grant an adjournment of the hearing on a peremptory basis and that the hearing would proceed on February 7, 2011 unless the parties agreed otherwise. [12] Therefore to be clear, the complainant is hereby directed to appear at the hearing scheduled for February 7, 2011 or to provide sufficient justification to warrant the granting of an adjournment of the proceedings. Given how long this matter has gone on, should an adjournment be sought it will have to be based on compelling reasons. Should the complainant fail to appear or provide reasons this hearing will either proceed in her absence or be terminated. [13] Therefore the hearing scheduled for February 1, 2011 is hereby adjourned. This matter will proceed on February 7, 2011 unless the parties agree otherwise. th Dated at Toronto this 26 day of January 2011. Janice Johnston, Vice-Chair