Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-2336.Sparkes.92-07-17 ONTARIO EMPL 0 YES DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPL OYEES DEL'ONTARIO GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT R~GLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS IBO DIJNOAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. MSG [Z8 TELEPHONE/T~LEC,~ONE. (4 1~; 326- 1388 180, RUE DUtqOA.S OLDEST, BLIREALJ 2100, TORONTO ~ONTAFIIO}, MSG 1Z$ FACSIMILE/T~L'~COPiE ... {416) 325-1596 2336/91 IN THE. MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN ~HPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING &CT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEHENT BOARD OPSEU (Sparkes) Grievor - &ad- The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Correctional Services)_' ~ -- Employer BEFORE: O. Gray ' Vice-Chairperson I. Thomson Member D. Montrose Member FOR THE W. Grenada GRIEVOR Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union FOR THE J. Benedict EMPLOYE~ Manager, staff Relations & Compensation Ministry of Correctional Services - HEARING June 16, 1992 AWARD The following ruling was delivered orally at the hearing held on June 16, 1992 in this matter: The employer seeks an adjournment today. Its representative says that yesterday he and the union's representative worked on an agreement to adjourn. He was advised that the terms of a tentative agreement had been read to the griever over the telephone. Changes were proposed as a result of her input. The employer representative had agreed to those changes. He was told that the grievor wanted to see the agreement. Both representatives agreed to meet this morning for that purpose. There was no discussion about what would happen ff the griever did not approve the agreement. The employer's representative says he tmderstoed he was coming to the. hearing to "sign this off." As a result, he released v~itnesses and did not complete his preparation for hearing. The union's representative acknowledges that it was not unreasonable for the employer representative to have drawn the conclusions he did. She nevertheless asks that we press the hearing ahead today. She says that the matter was in the hands of the grievor, and that she came prepared to proceed. In the circumstances, the parties' representatives ought to have discussed whether the hearing would go ahead if the agreement was not "signed off." They did not. Both parties bear some responsibility for the results of that oversight. In the circumstances, though, and particularly in view of the union's concession that it was not unreasonable for the employer representative to come to the conclusion he did;the employer is entitled to an adjournment. The hearing in this matter is adjourned to a date to be set by the Registrar.. This panel is not seised. Dated at Toronto this ~Tth day of July, lqq2c,' Owen V. Gray, Vice-Chair ~ ~"~-_~..' i. D. Montrose, Member