HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-1875.Gaunce.17-10-24 Decision
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB#2012-1875, 2012-1876, 2012-2036, 2012-2037, 2012-2038, 2012-2039, 2012-2040,
2012-2041, 2012-2042, 2012-2043, 2012-2322
UNION#2012-0411-0021, 2012-0411-0014, 2012-0411-0017, 2012-0411-0018, 2012-0411-
0019, 2012-0411-0020, 2012-0411-0021, 2012-0411-0022, 2012-0411-0023, 2012-0411-
0024, 2012-0411-0028
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Gaunce) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE Barry B. Fisher Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION Tim Hannigan
Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP
Counsel
FOR THE EMPLOYER Stewart McMahon
Treasury Board Secretariat
Legal Services Branch
Counsel
HEARING September 26, 2017
2
DECISION
[1] On December 8th, 2016, I issued an Interim Award requiring that the parties had to
keep to a tight schedule so that the case could proceed in regards to the
determination of whether the Grievor had been properly accommodated in the past
and whether she had experienced harassment and discrimination with respect to her
disability both under the terms of the Collective Agreement and under the Ontario
Human Rights Code.
[2] At the hearing held on September 26, 2017, the Employer was present, Union
Counsel was present but the Grievor was not present.
[3] Union Counsel advised the Board that the Grievor had given proper notice of the
hearing and that she had told him that she had no intention of attending. Union
Counsel advised the Board that he had warned the Grievor of the consequences of
her non-attendance. He also explained to her that due to a recent change in Board
policy, if she desired, the Board would adjourn the case and reschedule it at a later
date in Ottawa where she lives. She still indicated that she neither wished to have an
adjournment nor have the location moved to Ottawa.
[4] The Union indicated that because of the Grievor’s willful failure to attend they had no
evidence to present on the remaining issues of the case.
[5] The Employer asked that the remainder of the grievances be dismissed and that I
declare that the Grievor’s actions be determined to be an abuse of process, citing
Vice Chair Dissanayke’s decision in OPSEU (Ellis) v Ministry of Finance #1866/99.
[6] As the Union presented no evidence to support the Grievor’s allegations, I dismiss the
grievances set out above.
[7] I do not feel that is it necessary for me to decide if the Grievor’s actions constitute an
abuse of process so I will not decide this issue.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 24th day of October 2017.
Barry B. Fisher, Arbitrator