The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005-1443.Tardiel et al.07-04-05 Decision Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board Commission de reglement des griefs des employes de la Couronne Nj ~ Ontario Suite 600 180 Dundas Sl. West Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Bureau 600 180, rue Dundas Ouest Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tel. : (416) 326-1388 Telec. : (416) 326-1396 GSB# 2005-1443, 2005-2702,2005-3087,2005-3859,2005-3860, 2005-3861, 2005-3863, 2005-3865, 2005-3866, 2005-3867, 2005-3869,2005-3870,2005-3871,2005-3874,2005-3875,2005-3876,2005-3879,2005-3883,2005-3884,2005-3886,2005-3888, 2005-3889,2005-3890,2005-3891,2005-3893,2005-3894,2005-3895,2005-3896,2005-3898,2005-3901,2005-3909,2005-3910, 2005-3912,2005-3917,2005-3920,2005-3922,2005-3923,2006-0128,2006-0422,2006-0423,2006-0424,2006-0425,2006-0482, 2006-0623,2006-1129,2006-1130,2006-1816 UNION# 2005-0530-0022, 2005-0530-0040,2005-0530-0049, 2005-0530-0052, 2005-0530-0053, 2005-0530-0054, 2005-0530-0056,2005-0530-0058,2005-0530-0059,2005-0530-0060,2005-0530-0062,2005-0530-0063,2005-0530-0064, 2005-0530-0067,2005-0530-0068,2005-0530-0069,2005-0530-0072,2005-0530-0076,2005-0530-0077,2005-0530-0079, 2005-0530-0081,2005-0530-0082,2005-0530-0083,2005-0530-0084,2005-0530-0086,2005-0530-0087,2005-0530-0088, 2005-0530-0089,2005-0530-0091,2005-0530-0094,2005-0530-0102,2005-0530-0103,2005-0530-0105,2005-0530-0110, 2005-0530-0113,2005-0530-0115,2005-0530-0116,2006-0551-0002,2005-0530-0121,2005-0530-0122,2005-0530-0123, 2005-0530-0124,2005-0530-0125,2006-0530-0019,2005-0530-0126,2005-0530-0127,2006-0521-0022 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Tardiel et al.) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer BEFORE Loretta Mikus Vice-Chair David Wright Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Barristers and Solicitors FOR THE UNION F ateh Salim Counsel Ministry of Government Services FOR THE EMPLOYER March 28, 2007. HEARING 2 Decision These grievances raise serious allegation of systemic discrimination and involve the dissemination of threatening and racist letters to several staff in the correctional system. There are in excess of 80 GSB files with almost as many grievors. The first day of hearing was devoted entirely to managing these files. Mr. Heath and Ms. Nurse used the time effectively to categorize the grievors and grievances and attempt to consolidate the issues to allow for an efficient use of the Board's and the parties time and resources. At the next day of hearing the Union sought an adjournment to seek instructions about bringing forth a motion respecting an apprehension of bias. An order for production was issued but before the date set to hear the motion, the Union advised the Employer that it did not intend to argue its motion and at the next day of hearing the Union submitted a lengthy opening statement outlining the case it intended to make in respect of all of the grievors and grievances mentioned above. At the conclusion of the Union's submissions, the Employer asked for an adjournment of the remainder of the day to consider its position with respect to some of the issues raised in the Union's opening statement, specifically evidence it considered untimely and irrelevant. We were to reconvene on March 28, 2007 to hear that motion. At the hearing on March 28, 2007 the parties were able use the day effectively to reach an agreement on a process for the exchange of medical documents and information. The Employer intends to argue its motion on the admission of stale-dated evidence at hearing days scheduled on September 24 and 25,2007. It was, however, seeking an adjournment for the days of October 29 and 31, 2007. The background set out above was the basis for that request. It was the Employer's position that since these grievances where filed in 2005, the Union has sought and received the Employer's implicit and express consent to adjourn the hearing on the merits to deal with preliminary and sometimes unnecessary issues. The Union has not pressed to have these grievances heard and the delay in commencing the hearing falls at its feet. The Employer has co-operated with the Union and is seeking its co-operation now in adjourning the October hearing dates in order to prepare its case based on the decision of the Board on its motion to be heard in September. 3 DECISION It is precisely for the reasons set out above I must deny this request for an adjournment. These grievances were filed some time ago and raise very serious issues. The hearing, when it commences, will be difficult for all of the parties involved and the emotional cost will be high. Managing these grievances has taken a significant amount of time but has been for the benefit of both parties. Once the hearing begins, we should be able to streamline the process to allow for a smooth and uninterrupted course of proceeding. It serves no purpose at this early stage to point fingers at anyone party with respect to the usefulness of the previous hearing dates. What we have seen from those dates, however, is the possibility that some or all of the issues the parties intend to raise as motions can change and, by the time the Employer's motion on the timeliness of evidence is heard, it might also have been altered due to intervening circumstances. It would be premature at this time to cancel hearing dates set for October on the basis of a motion that might or might not be heard a month previous. In addition, without knowing the full details of the motion and the time needed to issue an order pursuant to the matters raised in the motion, it seems premature to decide that the parties will need additional time to begin the hearing on the merits. The Union will be proceeding first and advises the Board that the issues the Employer intends to argue in its motion will not apply to its first witness. Again, that might be the case but until we hear the motion it is mere speculation and cannot be the basis for an order to adjourn hearing days six months into the future. For these reasons, the Employer's request for an adjournment is denied. The hearing will proceed on the dates previously scheduled. I will entertain a request for adjournment, if necessary, after the motion on the admission of evidence had been heard. Dated at .T~~~nto this 5th day of April, 2007.