HomeMy WebLinkAboutCaron 20-03-05IN THE MATTER OF A GRIEVANCE under the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and
pursuant to a collective agreement
BETWEEN:
ST. CLAIR COLLEGE
(the “Employer”)
-AND-
OPSEU LOCAL 137
(the “Union”)
Caron Grievance
Before: Gail Misra, Arbitrator
Appearing for the Employer:
Margaret Szilassy, Counsel
Appearing for the Union:
Allison Vanek, Counsel
Conference Call held on March 5, 2020
Decision issued: March 5, 2020
2
INTERIM DECISION
I. I have been appointed pursuant to the collective agreement between the parties
to hear a grievance filed by the Union on behalf of its member, Mr. Caron. The
matter was scheduled for arbitration in Windsor, Ontario on March 9, 2020.
2. A few days prior to the hearing the Union, on behalf of Mr. Caron, sought an
adjournment of the hearing. The Employer objects to the adjournment request, and
as a result, I heard the parties’ submissions by teleconference on March 5, 2020.
3. Based on the Union’s submission, it appears that this is a grieva nce alleging that
Mr. Caron was terminated from his employment without just cause, and it raises
health and safety and human rights issues. Mr. Caron has advised counsel for the
Union that he has broken his ankle, and is therefore unable to attend the hea ring in
Windsor. As such, the Union is seeking an adjournment of the arbitration on March
9, 2020.
4. Since his termination from employment, Mr. Caron claims that he has moved to
Kingston; that given his injury, he cannot drive himself to Windsor for the hearing;
that he doesn’t have the means to get to Windsor any other way; and that he has no
one who could drive him to the hearing. Mr. Caron has provided very little in the
way of medical evidence to support his claims.
5. The Employer objects to the adjournment request as so little medical evidence
has been provided by the Grievor, and because it alleges that Mr. Caron’s
termination from employment was related to his inability to attend at work or to
provide sufficient medical information to support his absences. Furthermore, the
Employer argues that it is prejudiced by further delay in this case as, should the
termination grievance be successful, the College may be required to compensate the
grievor for an even longer period than has already accrued.
6. Having considered the submissions, I ruled orally on the conference call that I
would grant the adjournment on conditions.
7. For the purposes of the adjournment request, I accept the grievor’s assertion that
he is unable to drive to Windsor because he has apparently broken his ankle.
However, the grievor is required to provide medical pro of of his injury at the next
day of hearing in this matter.
8. In order to address the prejudice to the Employer, no liability will accrue to the
College between March 9, 2020, the date the hearing was scheduled to commence,
and the next hearing date when this case will commence.
3
9. It is important that the grievor understand that no further adjournments will be
granted at his request except in exceptional circumstances, for which there is cogent
evidence. Should Mr. Caron fail to attend at the nex t hearing date, this grievance
may be dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 5th day of March, 2020.
“Gail Misra”
Gail Misra, Arbitrator