Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-0951.Van Laere.93-02-02 ~ " - \ ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L 'ONTARIO 1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT ' , REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 2100 TORONTO ONTARIO M5G lZ8 TELEPHONEiTELEPHONE (-1161 326.1388 180 RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 2100 TORONTO (ONTARIO) M5G lZ8 FACSIMILE TELECOPIE (.J16) 326-1396 951/92 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (Van Laere) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Correctional Services) Employer BEFORE B Fisher Vice-Chairperson FOR THE L Yearwood GRIEVOR Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union FOR THE A pruchnicki EMPLOYER Grievance Officer Ministry of Correctional Services HEARING January 22, 1993 . . ~ Page 2 When this matter came up for expedited hearing the Union requested an adjournment on the grounds that the grievor was not present. It was determined that the grievor had been duly notified of the hearing date and had made no attempt whatsoever to advise his Union representative before the hearing date of any Inability to attend the hearing. Since the adjournment was contested it was determined at the hearing that the request for adjournment was to be denied because the grievor had been given reasonable notice and the Union had failed to provide an adequate explanation as to why the grlevor failed to show up. I noted at the time and I wish to note In writing that this Is in no way to be construed as a negative comment on the Union presenter rather it is the grievor's responsibility to advise the Union which he failed to do. This grievance concerned the question as to whether or not a verbal 'statement made by the grievor's supervisor constituted discipline. The Employer's position was that the comment was non-disciplinary in nature and therefore Is not grieveable. Upon the express undertaking by the employer to the Board that the events of the day In question namely April 2, 1992 were not Intended to be disciplinary at the time nor would be relied upon in future proceedings as disciplinary, I upheld the preliminary objection of the Employer and therefore the grievance is dismissed. ! Dated at Toronto this 2nd day of February, 1993 ~ I / 6' ; ! BARRr B;J"fISHER '/ ill / /,.' j ., ,