HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-1530.Fournier.95-01-20
(
:~-
~'
\ EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
ONTARIO
r, CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO
Jr
! . . GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
1111 SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT .
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO ON M5G 1Z8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE ,(416),326-1388
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST; BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ON) M5G 1Z8 FACSIMILE/TELECOPIE (416) 326-1396
., GSB# 1530/93
OPSEU# 93E549
IN THE HATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
'THE CROWN 'EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD .
BETWEEN 1
OPSEU (Fournier)
Grievor
- and -
I The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Tran~portation)
,a
Employer
BEFORE: W. Kaplan Vice-Chairperson
P. Klym Member
F. Collict Member
FOR THE E. McIntyre
UNION Counsel ., r
Cavalluzzo Hayes Shilton I
McIntyre & Cornish
Barristers & Solicitors
i
FOR THE P. Thorup ,
!
EMPLOYER Counsel I
Filion Wa~ely & Thorup
Barristers & Solicitors
HEARING April 8, 1994
November 3 & 30, 1994
December 1, 1994
~
:
I
/
~
I
.p ,
-
.1. 2 I"
~
i:J
'"
Introduction
This case, which first proceeded to a hearing in April 1 994, was scheduled
I \
to continue on January 5 & 6, 1995, in Thunder Bay Between April and
December 1 994, a number of days of hearing were lost for a variety of
different reasons. When the case' proceed on November 30 & December 1,
1994, the matter of third party status was addressed. In a decision
released subsequent to that hearing, a majority of the Board ruled that
Messrs. Bishop and McCallum were entitled to third party s~atus in these
t
proceedings. The case was then scheduled to proceed on the merits,
beginning on January 5, 1995 .
-
On December 27, 1 994, union counsel requested that these next hearing days
be adjourned. Another Vice-Chair of the Board had accepted the invitation
of the parties to atter.npt to mediate the matters in dispute. That
Vice-Chair was available on January 5 & 6, 1995, and unton counsel took the
position that it would be appropriate, given that it is expected that this
case, should it proceed, will occupy many days of hearing, to use these
scheduled days in an attempt to mediate a resolution thus obviating the
necessity of a prolonged hearing Union counsel expressed optimism th~t
the mediation efforts would result in a. Gomprehensive settlement being i
reached i
Employer counsel took the position that the case should proceed on the next
scheduled dates, and that the efforts to mediate the matter could be
pursued at some other time Employer counsel was not opti~istic that the
matter could be resolved, and pointed out that enough days had already been
lost, and that his client wished the .matter to proceed Without any further
delay
(~
f('
\ 3
Ie r.
~
Decision
After carefully considering. the submissions of the parties, an oral ruling
was issued adjourning the next scheduled hearing dates. While employer
counsel was not optimistic that the matter could be resolved, there was
some reason to believe that the mediation would be successful Given that
another Vice-Chair of the Board was ready and able to undertake this
assignment on the next scheduled dates" and given that a successful
I .
mediation would be in the interests of both parties to the proceeding, the
union's request was granted. A t I the request of the parties, this written
decision is issued setting out their positions and our decision
DATED at Toronto this 20th day of January t 1995
t//v
-------
William Kaplan
Vice-ChairP7e!-son
(1(/0~
-------
,
P Klym .
Membeg gM
- -
F Collict
Member