The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-1396.Grant.91-09-21 -f . ,- 'r I \ " I,t; - ONTARIO EMPLOYÉS DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE , 1111 SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD '·DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE :1100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. MSC ¡Z8 TElEPHONE ITELÉPHONE: (4 16) 326- 1388 180, FlUE DUNDAS OUEST, ElUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO), M5G 1Z8 FACSIMllEITELÉCOP/E .' (416) 326- r 396 1396/90 IN THE MATTER OP AN ARBITRATION - Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Betore r. r THB GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (Grant) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of ontario (Ministry of Revenue) Employer BEFORE: s. stewart Vice-Chairperson M. Vorster Member G. Milley Member FOR THE K. Whitaker GRIEVOR Counsel Ryder, Whitaker, Wright & Chapman Barristers & Solicitors . FOR THE K. Cribbie EMPLOYER Labour Relations Officer Ministry of Revenue HEARING June 25, 1991 ~ l ,.\- ~ , DECISION The issue before the Board in connection with this matter was a motion for an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for July 30, 1991. The Board granted the Employer's request for the adjournment orally and instructed the Registrar accordingly. The following are the reasons for the Board's decision. j The grievance of J. Grant is dated April 27, 1990, and alleges that the Employer violated the Collective Agreement in failing to award .her the position of correspondence and enquiry clerk. Counsel advised the Board that the grievance was originally scheduled for hearing on December , I 20, 1990, however the hearing was cancelled due to the unavailability of a panel that day. However, the r i , correspondence between the parties refers to an adjournment of the hearing on the agreement of the parties. By letter dated April 16, 1991, counsel for the Union wrote to the Grievance Settlement Board to request that the matter be rescheduled for hearing in consultation with the parties. However, the date of July 30, 1991 was fixed for the hearing without consultation with the parties in accordance with a new practice' of the Grievance Settlement Board dated May 7, 1991. I ;;1 I , ... -: - 2 Mr. Cribbie advised the Board that he will be on vacation on July 30, 1991 and this is the basis for his adjournment request. Mr. Cribbie is representing the Ministry on a related complaint before the Ontario Public Service Labour Relations Tribunal and he stated that he that the Employer wishes to have the same counsel in ~oth proceedings for purposes of consistency. He noted that the {¡ Employer had originally retained outside counsel for the hearing schedùled for December 20, 1990, however that counsel is also not available on July 30, 1991. Mr. Cribbie further advised the Board that Ms. B. Riley, the supervisor oft~e position that is the subject of the grievance is also scheduled to be on vacation on July 30, 1991. He stated that Ms. Riley may be the Employer1s advisor. She will be a witness at the hearing. It was the Union1sposition that the only prejudice to the Employer in proceeding with this matter on July 30, 1991 is additional cost associated with retaining outside counsel. It was submitted that in contrast, the prejudice to the grievor was substantial. It was emphasized that the grievor remains in the work environment with persons who are involved in this grievance and that the inevitable difficul ties created by such a situation shou'ld be alleviated as quickly as possible. With respect to Ms. Riley1s vacation plans, it was noted that it would be ~, ~ J ~ ~ ----- ~ 3 unlikely that the Employer would be called upon to present all of its witnesses and that it had not yet been decided by the Employer that she would be acting as the Employer1s advisor. It was the Board's decision to grant the request f?r an adjournment. While delays are unfortunate in this type of proceeding it is clear that the parties contemplat~d that a date would be set on agreement of the parties when the first scheduled hearing was cancelled, in accordance with the practice of the Grievance Settlement Board in effect at that time. Given this fact, the unavailabity of Mr. Cribbie and Ms. Riley, as well as the likelihood that the parties will be able to receive another hearing date from ~ the Board in the near future, it was the panells conclusion that the Employer's request should be grante~. While the unavailabity of a particular counsel on the first day scheduled for' a grievance is not normally a matter which would provide a basis for the granting of an adjournment, we are convinced, in the particular circumstances of this .case, that the granting of the request for an adjournment is appropriate. The grievance is to be scheduled for hearing by the Registrar in consultation with the parties at the earliest available date. This Panel is not seized with the ;>~ ~ -oi-' - 1 .-' - , . I 4 grievance. Dated at Toronto, t his 2 1 day 0 f Au g u s t ,1 991 --- ., ·~\"II.)"'\ \'~ - . . ~', ,,' . s. L. Stewart - Vice-Chairperson . r'? .., . _. r ~ U~~>.' .) '-- ..... ./ I M. Vorster - Member €~ - Member ;¡'iA-~ - II ONTARIO EMPLQYÉS DE LA COURONNE "' CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARJO 1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT , REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS / 180 DUNDAS STREET WEEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. MSG lZ8 TELEPHONEITÉLÉPHONE: (416) 326- r388 1180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO). M5G lZ8 FACSIMILE: ITÉLÉCOPfEE : (416) 326- 1396 Nove1'nber 15, 1991 AMENDMENT RE: 1411/90 OPSEU (Nadavallil) and the Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) Please remove the original cover'page and replace it with the attached. ~ ~ Joan Shirlow Registrar 1 JSjdbg ! Encl. I ¡. I,