HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-1881.O'Brien.10-11-09 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 EMPLOYER
George Parris
Ministry of Government Services
Labour Practice Group
Counsel
HEARINGNovember 3, 2010.
- 2 -
Decision
[1]This decision addresses a preliminary motion argued on November 3, 2010
WRGLVPLVVWZRJULHYDQFHVRI&KHU\O2¶ Brien, dated April 27, 2009, alleging,
inter
, a breach of Board orders made as a result of an earlier grievance ( GSB
alia
1948/93), and violations of human rights, health and safety and collective
agreement provisions. The parties agreed WKDW,LVVXHDµERWWRPOLQH¶GHFLVLRQDV
soon as possible so that the hearing could continue as scheduled on November 24
and 25, 2010.
[2] The employer argued that the grievance was not referred to the Board in a
timely fashion and that given the delay, the grievance should be dismissed. The
union argued that the parties made an agreement to hold the grievances in
abeyance before Stage 2 occurred, pending settlement. When settlement proved to
be impossible, the union then requested whether the employer wanted to proceed
with a Stage 2 and was advised that employer counsel was seeking instructions.
There was never an answer to this question, but the parties proceeded to case
manage these grievances and the earlier 2003 grievances. The employer agreed
with this description of events, but took the position that the union should have
referred the grievances without delay.
[3] Having carefully considered the submissions of the parties I have decided
that this motion must be denied. Given the agreement of the parties to hold the
grievances in abeyance, which was never formally ended, and given the delay
occurred during the grievance procedure, where I have the discretion to extend
time limits, I have decided that it would be a denial of natural justice to dismiss
these grievances. The grievances are of a serious subject and there was no
evidence that the employer is prejudiced by the delay. Indeed the employer had no
- 3 -
reason to think that the union was not forwarding the grievances, since the parties
began to case manage the 2003 and 2009 grievances in April of this year. One
further reason for my decision here is that the parties must be able to rely on the
agreements that they make in good faith, in order to pursue settlement negotiations
or case management. To hold otherwise would be damaging to labour relations
between the parties.
[4] Thus, for the reasons noted above WKHHPSOR\HU¶VPRWLRQWRGLVPLVVWKHVH
grievances is denied.
th
Dated at Toronto this 9 day of November 2010.
Deborah J.D. Leighton, Vice-Chair