HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-2612.Aitken et al.15-03-27 DecisionCrown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB#2012-2612
UNION#2012-0248-0073
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Aitken et al) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE Ken Petryshen Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Katherine Ferreira
Koskie Minsky LLP
Counsel
FOR THE EMPLOYER Peter Dailleboust
Treasury Board Secretariat
Legal Services Branch
Counsel
WRITTEN
SUBMISSIONS
March 26, 2015
- 2 -
Decision
[1] I have a number of grievances before me originating from a health and safety work
refusal and work stoppage that occurred at the Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre between
August 14 and September 11, 2012. The majority of the grievances can be described as “no
work, no pay” grievances; some of the grievances are individual discipline grievances. We are
now at the stage in this proceeding where the Employer has completed the presentation of its
evidence and the Union is about to call its evidence. With the intent of expediting the hearing of
this matter, the evidence-in-chief of each witness consists of a will-say statement with counsel
opposite having the opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
[2] On March 26, 2015, Employer counsel requested that the hearing scheduled for the
following day be adjourned. In considering whether to grant the adjournment I reviewed the
email chain between counsel and I spoke briefly to Ms. Ferreira and then later with Mr.
Dailleboust about the circumstances relating to the request for the adjournment. I concluded that
this matter could be addressed without a conference call. Late in the day I sent an email advising
counsel that I was granting the Employer’s request to adjourn the hearing and that a GSB
decision would soon follow. My reasons for granting the adjournment are briefly set out below.
[3] The Union planned to call Ms. M. MacLean as its witness on March 27, 2015.
Employer counsel received Ms. MacLean’s thirty-two page will-say statement early on the
morning on March 26, 2015. Employer counsel based the Employer’s adjournment request on
the fact that he and co-counsel did not have sufficient time to properly prepare for the cross-
examination of Ms. MacLean on the following day. Employer counsel advised that he was at a
hearing on March 26, 2015, and that his client was also not available on that day. I can
- 3 -
appreciate that the preparation of a will-say statement can be a time consuming process.
However, I was satisfied in this instance that it would have been unfair to compel the Employer
to proceed on March 27, 2015, when Employer counsel had received Ms. MacLean’s will-say
statement on the day before the scheduled hearing day. I can understand why Employer counsel
would not have been in a position to cross-examine Ms. MacLean on March 27, 2015. It was for
these reasons that I deemed it appropriate to adjourn the hearing scheduled for March 27, 2015.
[4] In my email to counsel on March 26, 2015, advising them of the adjournment, I also
advised that I was scheduling a conference call with counsel for 10:00 a.m. on March 27, 2015,
to discuss the scheduling of additional hearing dates. There are only three scheduled hearing
dates remaining. The conference call with counsel took place as scheduled. We discussed some
potential additional hearing dates, including a day before our next scheduled date of June 1,
2015, to replace March 27, 2015. I appreciate that counsel and the parties are making every
effort to have this matter heard as expediously as possible.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 27th day of March 2015.
Ken Petryshen, Vice-Chair