The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1995-1936.Slusarchuk.03-02-21 Decision Crown Employees Commission de ~~ Grievance Settlement reglement des griefs Board des employes de la Couronne ~-,... Suite 600 Bureau 600 Ontario 180 Dundas Sl. West 180 rue Dundas Ouest Toronto Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Telec. (416) 326-1396 GSB# 1936/95 0756/96 0762/96 2145/96 2146/96 2147/96 2148/96 2149/96 2150/96 UNION# 95G287 95G288 95G289 95G290 95G291 96D704 96D703 96H206 96H205 96H204 96H203 96H202, 96H199 96H200 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (Sl usarchuk) Grievor - and - The Crown In RIght of Ontano (Mimstry of Commumty and SocIal ServIces) Employer BEFORE Owen V Gray Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION Kathleen Lawrence Gnevance Officer Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon FOR THE EMPLOYER LIsa Nowak CoordInator Employee RelatIOns Mimstry of Commumty FamIly and ChIldren's ServIces TELEPHONE February 7 2003 CONFERENCE 2 SUPPLEMENTARY DECISION [1] My wntten decIsIOn dated February 3, 2003 confirmed an oral decIsIOn dIsmIssmg these gnevances [1] By Order dated December 18 2002 thIs Board (cbfferently constItuted) ordered as follows 1 The gnevor wIll be provIded one final opportumty to appear before the Gnevance Settlement Board m regard to these matters on January '30 200:3 Her faIlure to attend that hearmg barrmg exceptIOnal CIrcumstances WIll be grounds to chsmIss the matter 2. The gnevor IS advIsed that she IS represented m thIs proceedmg by the Umon, not a pnvate SohcItor In the CIrcumstances of thIs case the gnevor has no nght to be represented by pnvate counsel. '3 WIth the consent of all partIes the hearmg on January '30 2008 WIll proceed before Vice-ChaIr Owen Gray [2] The hearmg m these matters was scheduled for hearmg on Thursday January '30 2008 at 10:00 a.m. at the Board's premIses RepresentatIves of the employer and the umon attended at that tIme and place The gnevor chd not attend at 10:00 a.m. nor wIthm 45 mmutes thereafter The umon s representatIve advIsed me that at the gnevor s request the umon had been commumcatmg wIth her through the offices of her M.P P that notIce of the Board's order of December 18 2002 and of the tIme and place of the hearmg provIded for m that order had been gIVen to the gnevor by that means and that the M.P.P s office had confirmed receIpt thereof by the gnevor Thereafter neIther the employer nor the umon had heard from the gnevor ['3] As It appeared that there were no exceptIOn CIrcumstances I chsmIssed these gnevances orally m accordance wIth the order of December 18 2002 ThIs wntten decIsIOn confirms that ChsposItIon. [2] Followmg the hearmg of January 30, 2003, the umon's representatIve learned that a fax from the gnevor had arnved at the umon's Toronto offices at some tIme on January 29, 2003 The umon's representatIve felt oblIged to brmg the fax and ItS contents to my attentIOn, m VIew of her representatIOn to me at the hearmg on January 30, 2003 that the gnevor had not been heard from, She dId so m a telephone conference m whIch the employer's representatIve partIcIpated, The umon's representatIve explamed that m the ordmary course of events a fax sent that way was most unlIkely to have come to her attentIOn pnor to the scheduled hearmg (as mdeed It had not), and that she had specIfically mstructed the gnevor to commumcate wIth her by toll free long-dIstance telephone, whIch the gnevor had not done [3] Leavmg aSIde the questIOn whether I would have any JunsdIctIOn to reconsIder the decIsIOn dIsmIssmg these gnevances, I thmk It IS Important to record that even If the 3 gnevor's fax had been before me at the tIme, my conclusIOn at the hearmg of January 30, 2003 would have been the same [4] The gnevor's fax dated January 29, 2003 (mmus the gnevor's M P P's name and fax number) read as follows January 29 200:3 TO Ki\THLEEN LAWRENCE FA_eX NUMBER 1 416 44:3-9670 FROM MARIA A. SLUSARCHUK Fort Frances Ontano FAX NUMBER 1 807 [xxx xxxx] RE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD JANUARY '30 200:3 I have been away and Just receIVed your messages As I do not have a telephone of my own. [My M.P P s] staff have forwarded the messages to me I am fortunate that they provIde thIs commumty servIce I have been away as a famIly member has been mvolved m a severe motor vehIcle accIdent. My brother was a passenger m a car that was mvolved m an automobIle accIdent (m whIch the dnver was kIlled.> He has smce had heart surgery (twIce) neck surgery and arm surgery ThIS accIdent occured [SIc] out of-provmce Upon my return my 80 year old father (vIsually and hearmg ImpaIred) and mother are both ~ Ill, and smce I am the pnmary care provIder my attentIOn IS focused on my parents today Therefore I WIll be unable to attend the scheduled meetmg at the Gnevance Settlement Board m Toronto on Thursday January '30 200:3 as I care for Elderly parents I am wantmg as the employer IS wantmg to negotIate a reasonable settlement takmg mto account that I have been unemployed smce December 1995 The Mimstry's hand1mg of my past employment has now created a sItuatIOn that has damaged my employment opportumtIes m a small rural commumty I would request that you fax me cOlnes of each of the mchvIdual gnevanc forms whIch have been filed wIth the umon, whIch todate has not been provIded to me The filmg of these gnevances occured many years aqo and at thIs tIme I do not have cOlnes of the gnevance forms Thankmg you m advance for your assIstance m thIS matter [5] At the hearmg of January 30, the umon's representatIve advIsed me that she had asked the gnevor to commumcate wIth her by telephone but the gnevor had refused to do so, that commumcatIOn VIa the gnevor's M P P's office was at the gnevor's mSIstence, that the M P P's constItuency assIstant had told her that they were commumcatmg wIth the gnevor by telephone to an unlIsted telephone number whIch the gnevor had mstructed them not to reveal to the umon, that the Board's order of December 18, 2002 had been sent to the gnevor VIa the M P P , s office, and that the M P P , s office had confirmed that the umon's messages to the gnevor about the January 30th hearmg had been receIved by the gnevor The umon's representatIve has subsequently advIsed me that she sent the board's order of December 18, 4 2002 to the gnevor m care of the M P P's office on December 23, 2002, that when she contacted the constItuency office by telephone on January 22, 2003 she was told the gnevor had receIved the December 23, 2002 correspondence, that she faxed further correspondence to the gnevor VIa the constItuency office on January 23, 2003 and that on January 28, 2003 the constItuency office had confirmed that the gnevor had receIved the January 23, 2003 correspondence [6] The gnevor was dIscharged from her employment wIth the MmIstry m December 1996 for mabIlIty to meet the reqUIrements of her posItIOn, Her gnevance of that dIscharge was dIsmIssed by thIS Board (dIfferently constItuted) m August 1998, followmg a 16 day hearmg Slusarchuk, 2567/96 (Abramsky) [7] The gnevances wIth whIch these proceedmgs were concerned are as follows Date File # Nature of GrIevance March 29 1994 0756/96 Improper chscIplme/unfaIr performance appraIsal of March 18 1994 March 29 1994 0762/96 Improper chscIplme wIth removal of sIgnmg authontv August 10 1995 1986/95 5 gnevances raIsmg allegatIOn of harassment bv supervIsor pOIsoned work enVIronment unreasonable work expectatIOns etc. September 19 2148/96 Inappropnate chscIplme repnmand dated 1995 September 6 1995 Januarv 26 1996 2150/96 Inappropnate chscIplme -letter of repnmand dated Januarv 10 1996 Inappropnate chscIplme - suspenSIOn for '3 '3 davs Apnl 29 1996 2149/96 Gnevance agamst the work plan October 4, 1996 2147/96 Demal of travel claIm on September 1'3 1996 - Travelled WIth umon steward to meetmg m Kenora. October 4 1996 2146/96 SupervIsor opened confidentIal maIl. Apology requested & practIce to cease October 7 1996 2146/96 Pavcheck unfaIrlv WIthheld - resulted m NSF account charges on bank account. Although these gnevances all pre date the gnevor's dIscharge, they were not consolIdated or heard together WIth her dIscharge gnevance The dIscIplme complamed of m gnevances filed after 1994 arose out of performance Issues that were canvassed durmg the arbItratIOn of the 5 gnevor's dIscharge gnevance Had the hearmg of those dIscIplme gnevances proceeded, there would have been a threshold questIOn whether there was any factual Issue left to adJudIcate m lIght of the Board's decIsIOn on the dIscharge gnevance In all of the gnevances lIsted, there would have been a threshold questIOn whether any of the remedIes that were or could have been claImed, other than claIms for money (pay lost durmg the three day suspenSIOn, the amount of the travel claIm and the NSF charges and mterest), remamed pertment followmg the termmatIOn of the gnevor's employment [8] The assertIOn m the gnevor's fax of January 29, 2003 that she had only Just receIved the umon's messages seems at odds wIth what the very persons she had selected to receIve and convey to her those messages had earlIer told the umon, In any event, It IS apparent from the gnevor's fax that she knew of the hearmg date and that her parents' needs for care had not precluded her from travellmg Her fax dId not assert that that or any other CIrcumstance prevented her from travellmg to the scheduled hearmg [9] Even takmg the contents and context of the gnevor's fax mto account, on January 30, 2003 there were no such extraordmary CIrcumstances as would have entItled the gnevor to any further delay m the hearmg of these gnevances Accordmgly, had the fax been before me on January 30, 2003 I would nevertheless have dIsmIssed these gnevances Dated at Toronto thIS 21st day of February, 2003 ~~~