HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-1757SMITH99_04_16
ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO
1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
,
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 800, TORONTO ON M5G 1Z8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE (416) 326-1388
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 800, TORONTO (ON) M5G 1Z8 FACSIMILE/TELECOPIE (416) 326-1396
GSB # 1757/94,0792/95
OPSEU # 94F436 95C935
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEV ANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OntarIO PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(AdaIr Smith)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown m RIght of OntariO
(MInIstry of TransportatIOn)
Employer
BEFORE Damel A. Harns V Ice-Chair
FOR THE Knstm A. ElIot
GRIEVOR Counsel, ElIot, SmIth
Barnsters & SolICItors
FOR THE Huoko SawaI
EMPLOYER Counsel, Legal ServIces Branch
Management Board Secretanat
HEARING Apnl9, 1999
AWARD
These two gnevances were filed by OPSEU on behalf of Adair J SmIth who IS employed
by the Crown m RIght ofOntano (MmIstry of TransportatlOn) The UnIon appeared at
the heanng seekmg an adjournment on the basIs that Mr SmIth could not be present at the
heanng. The Employer opposed the request for the adjournment.
The UnIon mdIcated that the gnevor had receIved actual notIce of the heanng by way of
telephone advIce from counsel He adVIsed counsel that he could not attend both because
he was on holIdays and for personal reasons He dId not provIde counsel wIth any further
detail The UnIon acknowledged that the notice provIded to the gnevor was m
accordance wIth the practice of the partIes, thIS case bemg one of an enormous backlog of
cases, WhICh the partIes are seekmg to have decIded wIthout any further delay The UnIon
submItted that the expedIted procedures put m place by the Board, are nonetheless subject
to the prmcIples of natural Justice Although the gnevor dId not dIsclose to hIS own
counsel what personal commItments kept hIm from pursumg hIS claims agamst the
Employer on the scheduled day, counsel pressed that he ought to be gIven the benefit of
the doubt that the said personal commItments were properly personal and confidential
The UnIon relIed on Re Clarke and Mznistry of Government Services (1981), GSB 146/81
(Intenm DecIsIon)
2
The Employer opposed the request for an adjournment. It submItted that there was no
reason gIven for the request. It relIed on Municipalzty of Metropolitan Toronto and
CUPE Local 79 (1986),26 L.A.C (3d) 28 (Burkett)
The followmg IS my oral rulmg gIven at the heanng
There are two gnevances before the Board filed by OPSEU on behalf of Adair J
SmIth, who IS claSSIfied as a HIghway General Foreman wIth the Mmlstry of
TransportatIOn.
The first IS dated November 8, 1994 and gneves the "demal ofleave under Article
30 l(a) of the collective agreement between the partIes It was referred to the
Board by OPSEU on December 9,1994 The second IS dated March 17, 1995 and
gneves the "demal of TIme CredIts whIle Travellmg under ArtIcle 23 5" It was
referred to the Board on July 7, 1995
These matters have been consolIdated and form part of a backlog of cases before
the Board. As I understand It, the partIes have agreed to an expedIted process m
order to have such cases heard and determmed wIthout further delay
The process bemg followed IS to first schedule the matters for mediatIOn, fallmg
WhICh they are scheduled for arbItratIOn. These matters were scheduled for heanng
today, the medIatIOn efforts not havmg resulted m a settlement of the Issues The
gnevor was notIfied of the date of the heanng m accordance wIth the applIcable
process
The Board has been adVIsed that the gnevor IS unable to attend because he IS on
vacatIOn leave and for undIsclosed personal reasons There was no speCIfic reason
gIven for hIS non-attendance
I agree wIth counsel for the Umon that the commendable efforts bemg made to
hear and determme the cases that form the backlog must be tempered by the over-
ndmg dIctates of natural Justice However, the gnevor has not proVIded hIS
counsel WIth any cogent or compellmg reason for hIS failure to appear An
adjournment cannot be granted m a vacuum. There IS nothmg before me on whIch
3
the request may be granted. As was the case m Municipalitv of Me tropo lz tan
Toronto and CUPE, Local 79 (1986) 26 L.A.C (3d) 28 (Burkett) I am oblIged to
reject the request for an adjournment.
The Umon elected not to proceed Accordmgly, I dIsmIssed the gnevance for lack of
eVIdence and hereby confirm that decIsIon.
Dated at Toronto thIS 16th day of Apnl, 1999
.
S-
Damel A. HarrIs, Vice-Chair