HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-1881.O'Brien.10-10-28 Decision
Commission de
Crown Employees
Grievance
UqJOHPHQWGHV
Settlement Board
griefs
GHVHPSOR\pVGHOD
Couronne
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Bureau 600
Toronto, Ontario M5G
180, rue Dundas Ouest
1Z8
Toronto (Ontario) M5G
Tel. (416) 326-1388
1Z8
Fax (416) 326-1396
7pO
7pOpF
GSB#2003-1881
UNION#2003-0999-0026
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Union
2¶%ULHQ
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFOREVice-Chair
Deborah J.D. Leighton
FOR THE UNION
David Wright
Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
FOR THE EMPLOYERGeorge Parris
Ministry of Government Services
Labour Practice Group
Counsel
HEARING
October 20, 2010.
- 2 -
Decision
[1]This decision addresses a preliminary motion argued on October 20, 2010 to
GLVPLVV&KHU\O2¶%ULHQ¶VJULHYDQFe dated July 18, 2003, alleging, ,
inter alia
certain human rights violations. The parties agreed that I iVVXHDµERWWRPOLQH¶
decision by October 28 so that the hearing could continue on November 3 and 4.
[2]The employer argued that after the grievance was referred to the Board, no
action was taken to further it until May 2008. No adequate reason has been given
for the delay and therefore the grievance should be dismissed as abandoned, in
HPSOR\HUFRXQVHO¶VVXEPLVVLRQ
[3]7KHXQLRQDUJXHGWKDWWKURXJKRXWWKLVWLPHSHULRG0V2¶%ULHQZDV
receiving LTD and was too ill to proceed with the case. Counsel submitted that the
employer had not shown any prejudice. He urged that I should exercise my
discretion, given the medical evidence and deny the motion. He also maintained
that the employer had waived its right to make this motion by not raising it at the
earliest opportunity in 2008 when the case was scheduled for hearing.
[4]Having carefully considered the submissions of the parties I have decided
that this motion must be denied. The delay is considerable. However, given the
nature of the case and the medical evidence adduced to explain the delay, I am
persuaded that it would be wrong in all the circumstances to deny the grievor a
hearing on the merits of her complaint. There was no evidence of actual prejudice
provided by the employer. In balancing the interests of both parties I am
convinced that equity favours the union in this case.
[5]The employer made three motions to me in this case on October 20, 2010.
There was an agreement that the second motion would continue on November 3,
2010, when the case resumes. The third motion is regarding the scope of the
evidence that should be permitted and I have concluded that this motion should be
decided after I hear full submissions on the outstanding motion.
th
Dated at Toronto this 28 day of October 2010.
Deborah J.D. Leighton, Vice-Chair