HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-0552.Ianni.90-02-28ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L ONTARIO
::rzNCE CQMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST. TORONTO. ONTARIO. MSG 1Z8 -SUITE 2100
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST. TORONTO, (ONTARIO) MSG 1Z8
-BUREAU 2100
IN THE HATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN:
-and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Liquor Control Board of Ontario)
Employer
BEFORE: M.V. Watters Vice-Chairperson
P. Klym Member
G. Milley Member
FOR THE M. Gold
GRIWOR: Counsel
Koskie & Minsky
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE R. Little
EMPLOYER: Counsel
Hicks Morley Hamilton
Stewart Storie
Barristers & Solicitors
HEARING
: December 4, 1989
DECISION
At the commencement of the hearing, counsel for the Union
requested an adjournment of the proceedings. He advised that a
criminal charge of theft, which was related to the subject matter
before the Board, was scheduled for trial on December 13, 1989.
Counsel submitted that the grievor could be prejudiced in the
criminal proceedings were this Board to embark on the hearing of
the case. Specifically, he argued that such would provide the
Employer with an opportunity for pre-trial discovery. We were
advised that the grievor was prepared to waive any claim to
compensation beyond the date of the request for the adjournment.
Counsel urged us to follow the approach taken in ~cWilliams,
860/87 (Fisher), a case with similar facts, in which an identical
request was granted on terms.
The Employer opposed the request for an adjournment.
Counsel submitted that the grievor was protected from
self-crimination by virtue of section 13 of the Canadian Charter
of Ri-s and Freedoms. We were referred to the decision of the
Supreme Court of Canada in Dubois vs The Oueen 23 D.L.R. (4th) 503
in which the scope of the protection was given broad effect.
Counsel further submitted that, for several reasons, this Board as
a matter of policy should not automatically defer its proceedings
until after the dispositon of a related criminal charge. He
expressed concern that a lengthy delay could result in prejudice
to the Employer.
After considering the respective submissions, the Board
granted the Union's request for an adjournment on the following
terms:
1. That the matter be scheduled for hearing as soon as
possible after December 13, 1989;
2. That in any award that may flow from the hearing of the
grievance, the grievor will not request compensation
beyond December 4, 1989.
In making this Order, the Board noted that the trial date
was imminent. We were ultimately persuaded that a short
adjournment would serve to protect the interests of the grievor
-
accused. Additionally, we were not satisfied that it would
occasion significant prejudice to the Employer. Our decision, in
this regard, was premised on the limited facts before us, and was
not intended to reflect a broad or general statement of Board
policy applicable to all cases.
- - ---
The present panel of this Board is not seized of the
matter as
we did not receive any evidence relating to the
grievance.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 28th day of -February, 1990.
M. V. Watters, Vice-Chairperson
P. Klym, Member
G. Milley, Member