HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-0284.Mesh.85-09-13IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between:
Before:
For the Grievor:
For the Employer:
CUPE 1750 (Dianne Mesh)
and
Grievor
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Worker’s Compensation Board) Employer
P. M. Draper Vice-Chairman
P. Craven Member
F. T. Collict Member
M. Mitchell
Courxel
Sack, Charney, Goldblatt & Mitchell
Barristers & Solicitors
P. Jarvis
Course1
Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie
Barristers & Solicitors
Hearin% August 14, 1985
-2-
INTERIM DECISION
At the outset of the hearing on August 14, 1985, counsel to the Grievor
informed the Board that the grievance to be’heard was one of five grievances
having to do with events involving the Grievor and her then supervisor. The first
three grievances relate to disciplinary action taken against the Grievor. The
present grievance concerns a one-day suspension on February 7, 1985; the second
a one-day suspension on February 8th, 1985; and the third a three-day suspension
in April, 1985. The fourth and fifth grievances, which are currently at step~three
of the grievance procedure, concern a performance appraisal of the Grievor.
Counsel argued that the legal and factual issues in all five grievances are
related and that to hear them separately would be wasteful of the time and
efforts of the parties and an abuse of the Board’s resources. He requested that
the Board adjourn the hearing and direct that all the grievances be consolidated
and heard by one panel of the Board.
Counsel to the Employer opposed that request, arguing that because a
number of events that took place over a period of months all gave rise to
grievances is not sufficient reason to consolidate those grievances; that if they
were comolidated an unmanageable volume of evidence would be put before the
Board; and that, in any event, t’he issues raised by each grievance have to be
resolved separately by the Board.
. .
-3-
After recessing to consider the matter the Board ruled that:
1. The first and second grievances are sufficiently related that they should be
consolidated. The Registrar is’ directed to schedule them to be heard
together by a single panel of the Board.
2. The third grievance should be heard separately. The Registrar is directed
to schedule it to be heard on a date subsequent to the date of issuance of
the Board’s decision in respect of the first and second grievances.
We make no order with regard to the fourth and fifth grievances inasmuch
as they have not, at this time, been referred to the Board for adjudication.
We note, for the record, that the Board did not deal with two preliminary
matters raised by!counsel to the Employer, one to do with the scope of a
.subpoena obtained one behalf of the Grievor and served on the supervisor
concerned, and the other to do with what he understands to be the intention of
counsel. to the Grievor to argue that a letter of reprimand issued to the Grievor
on or about February 7, 1985, forms a part of the first grievance.
.
. -4-
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 13th day of September, 1985.
P. Draper, Vice-Chairman -
- P. Craven, Member
F. T. Eo>iLt, Member