HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-0606.Chadwick.84-03-06Between:
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Before:
OLBEJJ (K. Chadwick)
- And -
Grievor
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Liquor Control Board of
Ontario) Employer
R.L. Verity, Q.C. Vice Chairman
F. Taylor Member
E.R. O'Kelly Member
For the Griever: A.M. Heisey, Counsel
Blake, Cassels & Graydon
For the Employer: C.G. Riggs, Counsel Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie
Hearing: February 28, 1984
c
- 2 -
INTERIM DECISION
In a Grievance dated September 14, 1983, K. Chadwick,
grieves a 20 day suspension imposed upon him by the Employer.
At the outset of the Hearing, Counsel for the Union sought
an adjournment on the grounds that he had been unsuccessful in obtain-
ing instructions from the Grievor. The Employer's Counsel opposed the
motion alleging that there had been a previous adjournment in this
matter upon consent, and that no purpose would be served by a further
adjournment. The Grievor was not present at the Hearing.
Union Counsel was retained in this matter on January 21,
1984, for the purposes of representing the Grievor in two separate
Grievances, namely a 20 day suspension grievance and a dismissal
qrievance. On that date, Mr. Heisey wrote to the Grievor for
instructions to properly prepare for the suspension hearing which
was scheduled for February 13, 1984. Having heard nothing from the
Grievor, Union Counsel made the decision on February 10 to request
an adjournment of the February 13 suspension grievance, and obtained
the consent to that adjournment from the Employer's Counsel, Mr. Riggs.
On February LO, Mr. Heisey again wrote to the Grievor for instructions.
Accordingly, the suspension grievance was rescheduled for hearing on
February 28, 1984.
Numerous efforts were made to contact the Grievor, both by
personnel in Mr. Heisey's office and by the Union.
On February 20, the Grievor telephoned Mr. Heisey and
explained that he~had just received Counsel's letter of January
27. Apparently, the Griever, had chanqed his, address and telephone
number in the interim,and had.failed to advise the Parties of that
fact. In any event, Mr. Heisey arranged to meet with the'Grievor
on February 21 and February 25 in order to prepare the case for
hearing. The Grievor failed to attendat Mr. Heisey's office on
either date, and in addition failed to appear at the Hearing on
February 28. Additional attempts by Mr. Heisey to contact the
Grievor on the afternoon of February 27,and prior to the Hearing
on the morning of February 28 were also unsuccessful.
The Board is satisfied that Mr. Heisey has pursued every
possible avenue, and has made every reasonable effort to obtain
instructions from his client. For whatever'the reason, the Grievor
has failed to co-operate with his own Counsel in the pursuit of this
Grievance. No reason was advanced at the'Hearing to explain or
justify this lack of co-operation. In our opinion, no useful
purpose would be served by a further adjournment. For the above
reasons, the Union's request for an adjournment is denied.
Following the Board's ruling, the Union then withdrew the
Grievance.
DATED at Brantford, Ontario, this 6th day of March, A-D.;
1984.
R.L. Verity, Q.C. Vice Chairman