HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-1825.McKague&Innes.93-07-05
ONTARIO ( EMPLOYESDE LA COURONNE c=
CROWN EMP(:v EES DE L'ONTARIO
- . GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
11111 SETTLEMENT . .
REGlEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 2100 TORONTO ONTARIO. M5G lZ8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE (416) 326-1388
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 2100 TORONTO (ONTARIO) M5G lZ8 FACSIMILE /TELECOPIE (416) 326-1396
.J
,1825/92, 1596/92; 812/92
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (McKague/lnnes)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of ontario
(Ministry of Health/Fleetwood Ambulance Service)
Employer
BEFORE: A Barrett Vice-Chairperson
J. Carruthers Member
D. Montrose Member
FOR THE P. Munt-Madill
UNION Counsel i
Ryder, Whitaker, Wright & Chapman
Barristers & SOlicitors
FOR THE E. Keenan
EMPLOYER Counsel \
Mathews, Dinsdale & Clark
Barristers & Solieitors
HEARING April 30, 1993
\
I
~_.- -- ..----.> ----+- - - ~---_.'- ~:~~, --
~. ,'-'
"' . \.::!L.. DEe I S 10 N
\
~
These are written reasons for an oral decision given at the
hearing with respect to a union request for an adjournment, which
was opposed by the employer 1.\
In the Spring of 1992 both grievors, Mr McKague and Mr
.~
I \
Innes, requested extended leaves of absence from their jobs so that
they could pursue volunteer work and travel in foreign lands Both
leave requests were denied and grievances were filed by each
grievor over the denial of the leave Then the grievors decided to
-
depart on their travels anyway and were therefore terminated from
--
employment under the automatic termination provisions of the
collective agreement, and a Letter of Understanding Both grievors
then grieved their terminations All four grievances are before us
The grievances were scheduled for hearing on April 30, 1993,
and on that date the hearing convened but neither grievor was
present Counsel for the union advised that she had been retained
only two weeks previously and commenced an immediate search to find
the grievors. She could not locate Mr. McKague, but found Mr. Innes
who was in Ontario for a brief stay before returning to Africa Mr
Innes told her that he could not attend the hearing on April 30th
\ I
due to a commitment to a volunteer job, but he expected to be back
in Ontario by mid-July He also anticipated that Mr McKague would
I be back at the same time Thus the adjournment request
( _. t-'-
I' I,
.. 2
Union counsel argued that we should grant the request because
April 30th was the first scheduled hearing date, the issue of
dismissal is of the utmost seriousness, and the union made its best
efforts to locate the grievors, but M~ McKague was not even aware
of the hearing date Furthermore, there would be little, if any,
prejudice to the employer with respect to compensation or its
I
ability to present its case The leaves that were requested were
unpaid leaves and -a few months' delay would not make any material
difference
Employer counsel responded that Mr McKague has (engaged in
-'
correspondence with the employer on a periodic basis since his
departure and, if asked, they could have provided the union ,with
an address and fax number for him Mr McKague's most recent letter
dated April 18, 1993, advises that he will be staying in Israel
until about the end of May, then travelling in Turkey, Syria,
Jordan and Egypt, and concludes with the comment "I won't be
returning to Canada for a while" In an earlier letter dated July
j
30, 1992, Mr McKague advised that he would be leaving the country
on September 1, 1992, and "I will therefore leave my request to be
settled between the union and yourself and the GSB arbitrator when
they get around to hearing the case" ~hus employer counsel argued
that Mr McKague does not seem to be very concerned about
processing his grievance He has not kept in touch with the union
to advise of his whereabouts and seems to feel the matter can be
settled without his presence The employer also' contended that it
would suffer financial prejudice from the delay because if the
i
-- ( (.
....\ .. 3
grievors were reinstated they would require more re-tr~ining prior
to being put to work, and the negotiated ratios of full~time to
part-time employees are dis.turbed by the absence of these two
i
grievors, with financial consequence~
We decided to grant the union an adjournment on certain strict
terms, primarily because it was a first scheduled ~earing date and
we believe by the terms of the adjournment we can prevent prejudice
to the employer. Accordingly, the hearing was adjourned to August
25, 199 3, which isa peremptory date to the union Union counsel
is to contact the grievors immediately, advise them of the new
--
hearing date and r~quest instructions forthwith about their
intentions to return. for the hearing Union counsel is to advise
employer counsel and this Board as soon as she has instructions
whether or not the union intends to proceed on August 25th and
whether or not the grievors will be present If at the heari~g the
employer can prove financial prejudice as a result of the delay,
we will make an order rectifying that prejudice, should the
grievors be successful with their grievances We remain seized of
jurisdiction I
Dated at Toronto this 5th day of JU~
A 6 ice-Chairperson
~~4
V' ~ C_~:r:.J;:.~:ther8, Member ~
'~ ~5- ~ ---.:::::::::=-
D Montrose ,~ Member