Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-0585GORDYN95_12_11 ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DEL 'ONTARIO _II GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE G t '~\..- ~\ f \;v , ~.,\~ (~1J( SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT U-' BOARD DES GRIEFS 0''1 t~'"OJ\' 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 2100, TORONTO. ONTARIO, M5G lZ8 TELEPHONEIT~L~PHONE (416) 326-1388 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 2100. TORONTO (ONTARIO). M5G IZ8 FACSIMILE ITEL~COPIE (416) 326-1396 GSB # 585/95 OPSEU # 95A805 -- .-.-- --"-,- IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under N t. i DEe 1 1 1995 THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT ~ \ Before ... I F ....-.:........,. "." P' "... :.., THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD ..' 1 - ... .---......---- L--.-:. . .........-"..- --BETWEEN OPSEU (Gordyn) Grievor .. and .. The Crown in Right of ontario (Ministry of Health) Employer BEFORE S Kaufman Vice-Chairperson FOR THE R Murdock GRIEVOR Counsel Ryder, Wright, Blair & Doyle Barrister & Solicitor FOR THE D strang EMPLOYER Counsel Legal Services Branch Management Board Secretariat HEARING November 24, 1995 ~~ '" ~ 1 INTERIM DECISION This matter commenced before me as the January 16, 1995 grievance of Kathryn Gordyn, pertaining to the employer's failure to pay her for her attendance at a Stage 2 meeting related to a dismissal grievance, an alleged breach of its obligations. In opening statements Ms. Murdock advised me that the union wanted a ruling consolidating Ms. Gordyn's grievance with 5 other grievances she had filed, all pertaining to the same or similar failures to pay her for various attendances, on the basis that the grievances share the same subject mat- ter and evidentiary background. She advised that Mr. Strang was opposing her request for consolidation, and was seeking the consolidation of Ms. Gordyn's January 16, 1995 grievance with the grievance of Mr. Ron Hill, whose grievance was not before me, and whose instructions she did not have. Ms. Murdock submitted that the issue to be decided is whether the employer is compelled to pay for two union representatives' attendances at the same matter and that both Art. 27 and the employer's past practice have allegedly been violated. Mr. Strang advised me that he opposed consolidating Ms. Gordyn's other grievances on the grounds that they were were totally unrelated, and that her January 16, 1995 grievance arose out of the same attendance for which Mr. Hill had also claimed, so that only those two grievances should be consoli- dated. Ms. Murdock and Mr. Strang agreed that an adjournment would be required if any consolidation was directed. Mr. Strang objected to the consolidation sought by the union on the basis that it could have been and was not raised earlier, and that the employer was prepared to proceed today. He advised that the issue is who was the authorized represen- tative at the meeting for which Ms. Gordyn and Mr. Hill both claimed compensation. He advised that one of Ms. Gordyn's I ~~ 2 -- grievances claims payment for the last 3 days of attendance at an arbitration hearing which she attended pursuant to a union subpoena but at which she did not testify, and that the 3 days pertained to the days on which the employer put in its case. Another claim was for an attendance at a pre-hearing conference, which the collective agreement does not address. Ms. Murdock advised that all Ms. Gordyn's grievances relate to the same issue and to the course of conduct taken by the employer in relation to Ms. Gordyn, that the evidenti- ary background for them would be the same, and that consoli- dation would avoid the necessity of having to call the same evidence before more than one panel. Consolidation orders should not be issued lightly. Cer- tainly, requests for consolidation should be made as early as possible in the grievance process. Here, both parties are requesting consolidation of the one grievance before me with others, on the first day of hearing of this sole grievance, and it does not appear that either party sought the agreement of the other to the consolidation each seeks more than a few days prior to the hearing date. Consequently, the short notice issue will not be decisive. Where 2 grievances arise out of the same factual circum- stances and are premised upon the same provision in the collective agreement and the same alleged past practice, and where the parties are not opposed to those two grievances being heard together, the interests of both parties are met by hearing them together. Consequently, I directed the con- solidation of Ms. Gordyn's January 16, 1995 grievance (GSB 0585/05) with Mr. Hill's grievance. That necessitated an adjournment already anticipated by the parties. It appeared that the balance of Ms. Gordyn's grievances related to unpaid claims for attendances she felt were com- pensable under the collective agreement or the employer's past practice. Although the circumstances of each attendance may have differed, I was advised that the employer had dec- lined to pay Ms. Gordyn for them in reliance on its view of / 3 its obligation under the collective agreement i.e. the reason for declining payment for each of Ms. Gordyn's attendances is apparently the same or similar. I understand from the face of the balance of Ms. Gordyn's grievances that she viewed the refusal to pay for her attendances as harassment, discrimina- tion and/or anti-union animus. Mr. Strang did not dispute that the evidence respecting past practice would be the same for all Ms. Gordyn's grievances, although he challenged whe- ther the evidence would successfully establish the practice alleged by the union. Mr. Strang advised that the employer's course of conduct has been consistent from the outset of Ms. Gordyn's grievances. In view of the necessity to adjourn this hearing to in- ... form Mr. Hill of the consolidation of his grievance with Ms. Gordyn's January 16, 1995 grievance, and the resultant delay to the parties in having those grievances resolved, and in view of the similarity if not sameness of the underlying issues and at least part of the evidence in the balance of Ms. Gordyn's grievances, and of both parties' interest in not leading the same evidence in separate hearings before this board, it appeared that in the interests of resolving all the grievor's grievances as expeditiously and efficiently as possible, the balance of convenience for both parties lay in consolidating them, and I so ruled. The parties advised me that the following 8 grievances are to be consolidated pursuant to my ruling, subject to cor- rection with respect to GSB file numbers: GSB 822/94 Gordyn grievance May 24, 1994 (Ex. 3) GSB 1358/94 Gordyn grievances (3) June 16, 1994 ( Ex . 4) June 16, 1994 (Ex. 5) June 30, 1994 (Ex. 6) GSB 2177/94 Gordyn grievance Nov. 8, 1994 (Ex 7 ) / Hill grievances (2) Dec. 8, 1994 (Ex 8) Dec. 8, 1994 ( Ex . 9) 4 ~ GSB 0585/95 Gordyn grievance Jan. 16, 1995 (Ex. 1) I will remain seised regarding the above grievances and the parties may contact me with respect to continuation dates. Dated at Toronto this 11th day of December, 1995.