Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-1681.Romanec.05-08-29 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# 2001-1681 UNION# 2002-0234-0022 [02C074] 2002-0234-0023 [02C075] IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (Romanec) Union - and - The Crown In RIght of Ontano (Mimstry of Commumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer BEFORE Barry Stephens Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION Stephen GIles Gnevance Officer Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon FOR THE EMPLOYER Mike Bnscoe Staff RelatIOns Officer Mimstry of Commumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces HEARING June 2, 2005 2 DeCISIon The partIes agreed to an ExpedIted MedIatIOn-ArbItratIOn Protocol for the Maplehurst CorrectIOnal Complex. It IS not necessary to reproduce the entIre Protocol here Suffice It to say that the partIes have agreed to an expedIted process whereIn each party provIdes the vIce-chair wIth wntten submIssIOns, whIch Include the facts and authontIes the party Intends to rely upon, one week pnor to the heanng. At the heanng, oral eVIdence IS not called, although the vIce-chair IS permItted to request further InformatIOn or documentatIOn. In addItIOn, If It becomes apparent to eIther party or the vIce-chair that the Issues Involved In a partIcular case are of a complex or sIgmficant nature, the case may be taken out of the expedIted process and processed through "regular" arbItratIOn. Although IndIVIdual gnevors often wIsh to provIde oral eVIdence at arbItratIOn, the process adopted by the partIes provIdes for a thorough canvaSSIng of the facts pnor to the heanng, and leads to a fair and efficIent adjudIcatIOn process The gnevance In thIS case raises matters related to allegatIOns that the employer faIled to act In good faith wIth respect to a memorandum of settlement. The umon stated at the heanng that It had made attempts to contact the gnevor by mall, and through the local's reVIew of ItS records, In order to submIt further partIculars and InformatIOn, but no such InformatIOn was forthcomIng. The umon also advIsed the Board that the gnevor was not currently employed by the Mimstry 3 HavIng revIewed the eVIdence presented and the submIssIOns of the partIes, It IS my VIew that there IS no eVIdence of a breach of the collectIve agreement. As a result, the gnevance IS dIsmIssed. Dated at Toronto thIS 29th day of August, 2005