HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-1424.Wallace.91-01-25
--- , "- ·__~d _.0,......-
, : ,
ONTARIO EMPLOYÉS DHA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DEL'ONTARIO
1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT ,
REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 OUNDAS STREET WEST, surriE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO, 1\of5G IZ8 iELEPHONEITI:LEPHONe.' (~15¡ 326- 1388
180, RVE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO). M5G lZ8 FACSIMILEliEL£COPIE: 1416) 326-1396
1424/90
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Onder
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAI~ING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN OPSEU (Wallace)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Revenue)
Employer
BEFORE: B. Kelier Vice-Chairperson
J. McManus Member
M. O'Toole Member
FOR THE
GRIEVOR
FOR THE K. Cribbie
EMPLOYER Labour Relations Officer
Personnel Services Br~nch
Ministry of Revenue
BEARING: December 28, 1990
J
--...~
~'" - -" . ~--.,.,.~.
-2-
DECISION
The grievor claims to have bee~. trea'ted unjustly and discriminated
agains't because the employer only paid him $15.00 rather than
$20.00 claimed on an expense request.
At the appointed time and date of hearing -the Board and employer
were in a'ttendance.Neither the grievor nor anyone on his behalf
was. In accordance with its usual practice, the Board waited 30
minutes and after verification that the grievor had been informed
of the hearing, dismissed the grievance.Prior to doing so, however,
it asked the employer 'to give a brief outline of the issue giving
rise to the grievance.
The Board was informed that the issue arOSE' as a result of the
a'ttendance by the grievor at a meeting if the Institute of
Municipal Assessors of Ontario.Although there is no requirement to
do so the employer has, in the past, reimbursed employees who
attend the registration fee of $15.00. This year the Institute
started charging $20.00 for non-members. The grievor is a non-
member. He claimed reimbursement for the $:¡O. 00 rttgi sb:atioll fee.
The employer approved only $15.00-the amount it has always paid.
The result? This grievance!
Although the following is clearly gratuitous, we are of the view
that the instant case requires some comment.. As has been stated
often in other decisíons, the workload of the Board ís increasing
dramatically-as of November it was more than 40% higher than last
,
year. And last year's workload was at leasttha-t: much greater than
-
-3-
the year before that. The result is that ~he resources of the Board
~re being severely taxed. The above is no secret. The parties are
well aware of them.
In spite of that, the Board was faced with the situation that arose
here. The grievar was aware of the hearing¡his representative was
aware of the hearing. Yet neither showed up. In fact neither made
the Board aware-either the day prior to or the day of the hearing-
that they would not be attending. So the members of the panel came
as did the employer, and sat and waited and finally dismissed the
grievance. Leaving aside the lack of cOurtesy displayed here it
must be understood that what happened deprived some other grievor
of the chance to have their case heard. Additionally of cou?=,se,
this episode cost the taxpayers a fairly substantial sum. Hardly
seems fair.
NEPEAN this 25th day of January 1991" ~ ..
---------------~~-----------------
1'1. Brian Keller, Vice-Chairperson
-s- K~ I.M.~.
---------------------------------
J. McManus, Member
-~~-~--~~~~----------~
K. O'Toole, Member
-", ..'~ I
~ --=---...