HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-1640.Porter.91-06-20 ~ ' ': ; ONT~;O EMPLO~'£$ Df LA COu.~ONNE
GRIEVANCE C~MMISSiON DE
SE~LEMENT REGLEMENT .
BOARD DES GRIEFS
r~O OUNOA~ STREET WEST, ~tTE 21~, TO~ONTO, ONTA~, MSG ~Z~ ~ELE~O~E/TELE~O~E-
1640/90, [641/90, 428/90
IN THE I~TTER OF ~8ITRA?XON
Under
THE CRO~N F~fPI~YEES COLLECTIVE B~G~ININ~ ~CT
T~ GRIEV~CB BETT~~ BO~
OPSEU (Porter)
~rievor
- mn~ -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Skills Development)
Employer
B~B~ORB: S. Stewart Vice-Chairperson
W. Rannachan Member
D. Clark Member
FOR T~ M. Doyle
GR[~VO~ Counsel
Ryder, Whitaker, Wright & Chapman.
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR TIIE C. Peterson
EMPLOYER Counsel
Winkler, Filion & Wakely
Barristers & Solicitors
THIRD ~RT~ A. Bryant
HEARIN~ May 24, 1991
DECISION
The hearing in this matter was convened to deal with
the September 17, 1990 grievance of Ms. $. Porter. in that
grievance Ms. Porter alleges that she should have been
awarded a OAG ~6 position in a job competition. At the time
of the competition Ms. Porter was not a member of the
classified service. The successful applicant, Ms. A.
Bryant, was notified of this proceeding and her right to
participate in the hearing by letter dated April 30, 1990.
Ms. Bryant was in attendance at the hearing. Ms. Bryant
advised the Board that she was pursuing the matter of
retaining counsel and wished to have an opportunity to
continue to pursue this matter.
Mr. Peterson advised the Board that he had recently
become aware of two other grievances filed by Ms. Porter
that are currently before the Grievance Settlement Board.
These grievances have not yet been scheduled for hearing.
One of these grievances, (GSB File Number 428/90), alleges
that the grievor's status should have been that of a
classif, ied employee. In the other grievance, (GSB File
Number 1641/90), Ms. Porter alleges that she was unjustly
dismissed. The latter grievance was filed at the expiry of
Ms. Porter°s last contract with the Employer. Counsel were
in agreement that it would be practical and expeditious to
order the consolidation of these three grievances. The
Panel was also of the view that a consolidation of the
three grievancs was. appropriate.
Mr. Peterson stated that he was not in possession of
all of the relevant material relating tO the two other
grievances and because he had only just become aware that
an issue of the grievor's status had been raised, he was '
not in a position to deal with this matter. Accordingly,
he requested an adjournment. Ms. Doyle did not dispute
that Mr. Peterson would be prejudiced if he were forced to
deal with the matter of Ms. Porter's status. However, she
supported the Board's suggestion that the Union adduce the
evidence of its first witness in'chief and then adjourn so
that Mr. Peterson could obtain information about the
relevant facts prior to cross-examination.
While this apprOach would have accomodated Mr.
Peterson's concerns, it was apparent that the hearing would
not make considerable progress on the half day that had
been scheduled for the hearing. While Ms. Bryant had some
opportunity to retain counsel, the length of notice that
she has received of this hearing was not considerable. If
she does obtain counsel there would be some disadvantage if
her counsel did not have an opportunity to hear the
evidence of the Union's first witness in chief. Weighing
this factor in light of the fact that only limited progress
on this case could be made in any event, the hearing was
adjour ned.
It is hereby ordered that GS8 files 1640/90, 1641/90
and 428/90 be consolidated for hearing. As this Panel did
not hear any evidence it is not ~eized with the grievances.
The hearing is to be scheduled by the Registrar in
consultaion with the parties.
Dated at Toronto, this2othday of June, 1991
S.L. Stewart - Vice-Chairperson
W. Rannachan - -Member .,
D. M. Clark - Member