HomeMy WebLinkAboutHipsz 22-03-17IN THE MATTER OF A GRIEVANCE under the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and
pursuant to a collective agreement
BETWEEN:
SHERIDAN COLLEGE
(the “Employer”)
-AND-
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES’ UNION,
LOCAL 245
(the “Union”)
T. Hipsz Discharge Grievance
Before: Gail Misra, Arbitrator
Appearing for the Employer:
Tim Liznick, Counsel
Quinn Brown, Student-at-Law
Wanda Shreve, Senior Legal Counsel
Maureen Gioseffi, Employee Relations Coordinator
Natalia Raguz, Human Resources Business Partner
Appearing for the Union:
Allison Vanek, Grievance Officer
Tom Hipsz, Grievor
Nancy Heath, President, Local 245
Ruth McLelland, First Vice President, Local 245
Hearing held by videoconference on March 15, 2022
Decision issued orally: March 15, 2022
2
INTERIM RULING
I have been appointed pursuant to the collective agreement between the parties to
hear a discharge grievance filed by the Union on behalf of its member, Tom Hipsz.
At the first day of hearing, held on March 15, 2022, the grievor sought to have
sixteen people, comprised of a Member of Provincial Parliament, two journalists,
and his friends and family attend at the hearing held on the videoconferencing
platform, Zoom. The Employer objected to the admissio n of these individuals, and
the Union argued in favour of their attendance at the hearing.
For the parties’ records, I am providing a transcript of my oral ruling, which was as
follows:
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the jurisprudence, in
the exercise of my discretion as the arbitrator in this matter, I uphold the
Employer’s objection to the admission of members of the public, be they
members of the media, politicians, friends or family, to this proceeding.
I make this ruling in light of the dispute, the context of the dispute, and the
possible implications upon my order excluding witnesses. While Sheridan
College is a public institution, the issue of the grievor’s termination from
employment is not a matter of public kno wledge or the subject of media
coverage. What is in the public sphere is the College’s training materials.
However, the issue before me is not the validity of those training materials,
but rather whether the employer had just cause to terminate this grievor for
allegedly providing the training materials to the media, and for allegedly
identifying a College staff person to the media.
Should the grievor wish to have one personal support person attend the
hearing with him, he is permitted to identify that p erson. That individual will
have no standing to make any submissions in this arbitration, and will be
bound by all orders issued to protect the integrity of this proceeding.
I remain seized.
Dated this 17th day of March, 2022.
“Gail Misra”
Gail Misra, Arbitrator