Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-0258.Group Grievance.05-01-13 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# 1999-0258 1999-0712, 1999-1260 UNION# 1999-0517-0004 1999-0517-0006 1999-0517-0014 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (Group Gnevance) Union - and - The Crown m RIght of Ontano (Mimstry ofCommumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer BEFORE Ken Petryshen Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION Ed Holmes Ryder Wnght, Blair & Doyle BarrIsters and SOlICItorS FOR THE EMPLOYER MeredIth Brown & BenJamm Parry Counsel Management Board Secretanat HEARING January 11 2005 2 DeCISIon At a heanng on January 11 2005 I had before me three gnevances filed In 1999 by employees at the Toronto West DetentIOn Centre whIch raise certaIn pensIOn Issues There are two group gnevances, each wIth a number of sIgnatones, and an IndIVIdual gnevance filed by Mr M. Roy Mr Parry on behalf of the Employer took the posItIOn that the matter could not proceed untIl the Umon provIded the Employer wIth partIculars wIth respect to each of the gnevances Mr Parry had recently sent the Umon a detaIled wntten request for partIculars Mr Holmes, on behalf of the Umon, dId not oppose an order dIrectIng the Umon to provIde partIculars AccordIngly I hereby dIrect the Umon to provIde the Employer wIth wntten partIculars of the remedIes It seeks wIth respect to these gnevances and wntten partIculars of the facts on whIch It and the gnevors may seek to rely Counsel agreed that only an order In thIS form was reqUIred at thIS tIme and that any unresolved Issues concermng the adequacy of the partIculars wIll be referred to me Mr Parry reserved the nght to raise certaIn matters at the appropnate tIme, IncludIng the JunsdIctIOn of the Gnevance Settlement Board to hear these gnevances Mr Roy attended at the heanng wIth counsel, Mr D ReIter The Umon and the Employer took the posItIOn that the Umon had carrIage of these gnevances and that Mr Roy dId not have the nght to be represented by Mr ReIter at thIS proceedIng. After entertaInIng submIssIOns on thIS Issue, I ruled orally at the heanng that Mr Roy dId not have the nght to be represented by counsel In the cIrcumstances, other than counsel selected by the Umon. The Gnevance Settlement Board has consIstently held that the Umon has carrIage of a gnevance at arbItratIOn and that It alone has the nght to decIde who wIll represent gnevances at arbItratIOn. 3 In thIS Instance, the Umon has decIded that Mr Holmes well represent It WIth respect to these gnevances The heanng of thIS matter wIll contInue on dates to be scheduled In the usual manner Dated at Toronto thIS 13th day of January 2005