Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-0424.Heath.82-11-18. ..I.? THE MATTER OF AN AREIITRATIOY Between: Under THE CROWN'EMPLOTEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before TiiE GRIEVANCE SETTLEXEIU BOARD Before: For the GrievoL: For the ihploye:: .’ OPSELJ (Janes L. Heath) Griever - And - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Healthj~ Employer R.L. Ve& Q.C. J. McUanus A. G. Stapleton Vice Chairman Siember Me:nbsr ?.A. Sheppard Griavance/ClassificaticyOfficer Ontario Public Service Zmpi.cyees IjnioQ ._ . ...) .,,. DECISION th The Parties requested an Order for Directions concerning three separate Grievances filed by James Hea as follows: .(I i "Not Compliance" to medical certif.icate grievance dated June 30th, 1982 (G.S.B. ::'. /1 2 5 / 8 2 ) ; (2) "Unjust Punishment" (suspension) grievance '. dated July 29th, 1982 (G.S.B. #424/82); (3) "Unjust Dismissal" grievance dated August 23rd, 1982 (G.S.B. #467/82). In fact, only the second and third grievances stated above were before the Board on Friday, November 12th, however on the consent of the Parties, it was agreed that procedural directions shou 1 d app ,l y to all three ,~grievances. On November 12th 1982 the Board heard no evidence on the merits of any of ,the grievances. In essence, we were 'asked to give Directions regarding: (1) The .order of proceedings. > (2) The venue of the proceedings. In the first matter, both Parties ag~reed that each of the three grievances should be heard separately. The Ministry's position was that each Grievance should be heard consecutive.ly by the same Board, at the same location. The ordsr of sug3es~tid procedure was to commence with tte least serious matter (the non-compliance grievance)'. then to proceed 'with the suspensjon - 3- grievance, and finally to dispose of the discharge grievance. The .Union adopted the position that each grievance should be heard by a separate panel of the Board and that it would be prejudicial to the Grievor's interests to have all 'matters dealt with by one panel. The Union was afforded additional time subsequent to the Hearing to provide the Board with copies of judicial precedents .relied upon. Section 20(8) of the Crown Employees Col1ectiv.e Bargaining Act, R.S.O. 1980, Chapter 108, gives to the Board broad powers to determine its practice and procedure. -That sub- section reads. as follows: "The Grievance Settlement Board shall determine its own ~practice and procedure but shall give full o'pDortunity to the parties. to. any proceedings to present their evidence and to.make their submissions, and the Grievance.Settlement Board may, subj,e~ct to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, make regulations governing its practice and procedure and the exercise of its powers and prescribing such forms as are considered advisabJe." Also worthy of repetition is Article 27.1 of the Parties' Collective Agreement which reads: "It i's the intent of this agreement to adjust as quickly as possible any complaints or, differences between 'the parties arising from ihe inte.rpretation, a?piication, administration or alleged contravention 31 ch~s a?reeflent,. including any question as tc whether a matt?r is arbitrable." : - 4: Having considered the .arguments of the Parties,- this Board agrees that each grievance involves a separate matter and accordingly each grievance should be heard separately. We cannot accept the Union's argument that the Grievor would be prejudiced in any way by having ail three grievances heard before one panel of Arbitrators. We are of the view that it would be preferrable and more expeditious c- to have all mat we would direct days for a Hear commencing with ters hea r the Reg i ing of a ,l the non d by one panel of the Board. Accor~dingly strar to set aside three consecutive 1 matters affecting James Heath, _ compliance grievance, followed by the suspension grievance, followed by.the discharge grievance. Perhaps the more interest,ing matter in this application for directionsis the venue of the Hearings. The Ministry requests that,the Hearings be held in Windsor, Ontario, essentially as was alleged for the convenience of some ten to twelve witnesses -from the Windsor area. The Union saw no reason to move the location from Toronto. Section 20(12) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act states: "'The office of the Grievance Settlement Board shai! be in the City of Toronto, but:the Grievance Settlement Board may sit at SuCn other places as it considers expedient." While it is true that the regular sittings Of the Board take place in Toronto, there may be circumstances from time to time when other locations are deemed more appropriate. - In these three grievances, the Ministry has advised this 8oard.that ten to twelve witnesses are required from the Windsor area, of which six to eight potential witnesses are employees with the Windsor Ambulance Services. In addition, some two to three of these potential~witne,sses are dispatchers with the local ambulance service. Although it is :true that the ambulance service contains some thirty to thirty-five members, the disruption to scheduling and staffing patterns of the ambulance service must be a consideration before this 8oard. In the event that there was a major emergency in the Windsor area in which the ambulance service ,would be called upon as an essential component, it would be a.tragedy indeed to have some six to eight members of that service in attendance at a Hearing at Toronto. 'Therefore, in the cjrcumstances it is our decision that the Registrar shall make arrangements forthwith to hold Windsor, he Hearings for file number 424/82, 425/82 and 46i/82 at Ontario. The date,,of November 20th. 1082 already I . . -6- established for a Hearing of the suspension grievance involvin'g James Heath shall be abandoned. As this Board has heard no evidence~on the merits of any of the grievances, it may well be that the grievances will be heard by a panel that is differently constituted. DATED at Brantford, Ontario, thi.s 18th day of November, A.D., 1982.