Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-0826.Union.89-02-15 CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTAR~O GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE SE~LEMENT R~GLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS ~0 DUNDAS STREET ~EST, TO~NTO, ONTARIO. MSG ~Z8 -SUtTE 2f~ TELEPH~E/T~L~PHONE 180, RUE OUNDAS OUES~ TORONTO. (ONTARIO) MOG 1Z8- BUR~U ~ [4f6) 5~.~8 0826/88 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: OPSEU ~Un]on Orlevor - and - The C~own ~Ministr? of Correc~.on~l ~e~vice$) Employer Before: N, V, Dissanayake V~ce-Chairper$on ,.,vba~n Member H. Knigh~ Member Fo~ the Gmievom: R, $Zephenson ,..o,lnse t This is' a union gri~vancu a,i',~ing a conui-aventio~i ~rticle i8.i of t~e col].,=c'ziv,~ sgresme;'~t. After the counsel ~or the gr2,::'¥'o~, had complened his opening statement, 'Mr. Ba. nedic~ for the Employer, raised two issues. First, it was contended that the Employer was naken by surprise by ~he bz-oad nature 'was snaUed tha~ ~rom ~he diScussloY~s Lr~el took place ~he course o[ the grievance puocedure. Uhe 'Employer had understood the issue ~o be a much narrower one. Ii~ the circumstance, Mr. Benedlut submitL~d ti~at the Employer was unable to proceed winh ~he nearing, Accordingly he sought an adjournment. In addition, Counsel for the Employer submitted that insuf ~icmen% particulars had been provided wiuh regard to uhe alleged violation of the collective agreemen5 and requested 5hat the Board direc5 the union to puovide further par~.icuiars. Counsel for %ne union disagree~i '~ha2 she discussions during +~,~= grievance procedure could liave led the Employer %o i;easoLaDl'3 believe shes nhe union ' was taking a position a~L~' t~a;':.,-~,~.'~ ~ i~: cl,a~t cla]med c.n ,. abou% %he possible delay zha% may be caused by an adjournment. However', counsel ve:y grudgingly agreed an adjournment, p~ovided a i~%her hearing could be scheduled wizhin a reasonab!= nime. On the question of parLicuiars, counsel maintained that adequate par5icuiars had been provided. grievance, taken %ogether w~ui~ 5he par%iculars disclosed in the course o~ union counsei's opening sBatemen~ was sufficien5 to permit the Emi31oyer to pre,are i'ts case. Accordingly, the Board declined ~',o make a direction uo provide further' Dart~cuiar£. In accordance wi%h the agreement reached at the hearing, this mat~er is adjourned to a date to be fixed by the Registrar in consultation wish the D~rties. This panel c.f nhe Board is non seized of this matter, which is hereby referred to the Registrar for re-scheduling. Nimal V. Dissanayake Vice-Chairperson