HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-2050.Gordon.12-10-01 DecisionCrown 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#2011-2050, 2011-3375, 2011-3554, 2011-3555, 2011-3556, 2011-3557, 2011-3558,
2011-3559, 2011-3560, 2011-3561, 2011-3562, 2011-3563, 2011-3564, 2011-3565, 2011-3566,
2011-3567, 2011-3568, 2011-3569, 2011-3570, 2011-3571, 2011-3572, 2011-3573, 2011-3574,
2011-3575
UNION#2011-0532-0015; 2012-0532-0003; 2012-0532-0004; 2012-0532-0005;
2012-0532-0006, 2012-0532-0007, 2012-0532-0008, 2012-0532-0009, 2012-0532-0010,
2012-0532-0011, 2012-0532-0012; 2012-0532-0013; 2012-0532-0014; 2012-0532-0015,
2012-0532-0016, 2012-0532-0017, 2012-0532-0018, 2012-0532-0019, 2012-0532-0020,
2012-0532-0021, 2012-0532-0022, 2012-0532-0023, 2012-0532-0024; 2012-0532-0025
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Gordon) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Environment) Employer
BEFORE Daniel Harris Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Eric del Junco
Counsel
FOR THE EMPLOYER Kevin Dorgan
Ministry of Government Services
Labour Practice Group
Counsel
HEARING September 19, 2012.
- 2 -
Decision
[1] These proceedings began as a lay-off grievance filed on behalf of Mark Gordon dated
August 4, 2011; the hearing commenced on February 22, 2012 as a mediation-arbitration. Since
then, 23 grievances have been filed against the employer’s decisions to deny the grievor the right
to bump into other positions. All of those grievances have been consolidated with the lay-off
grievance and came on for a mediation-arbitration process on September 19, 2012. At that time
the parties jointly submitted that all matters were to be heard together, and the Union brought an
application that the Employer be ordered to proceed first.
[2] Since these matters are proceeding as a mediation-arbitration, the decisions of the Board
have no precedential value pursuant to article 22.16.7, which reads as follows:
22.16.7 Decisions reached through the mediation/arbitration process shall have no
precedential value unless the parties agree otherwise.
[3] The Union conceded that the weight of the Board’s jurisprudence supports the proposition
that it should proceed first. The thrust of its submissions was that it was open to me to ignore
that jurisprudence. Having reviewed the authorities and the submissions of the parties, I see no
reason to depart from those established authorities.
[4] In addition, particulars of the lay-off grievance delivered by the Union make allegations of
bad faith. That is, the Union says that the grievor was targeted rather than the position he held.
The weight of the jurisprudence also requires that a party making such allegations should
proceed first so that the other party may be well enough informed to be able to respond to them.
Again, I see no reason to depart from those well-established authorities.
- 3 -
[5] The parties relied upon the following authorities: OPSSEU (Kerna) v. Ontario (Human
Rights Commission), GSB# 2002-0944; OPSEU (Brimicombe/Union) v. Ontario (Ministry of
Labour), GSB #2007-2529 et al. (Dissanayake); Ed Mirvish Enterprises (Ed’s Chinese and Ed’s
Seafood) v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union, Local 75, OLRB File# A/9508216-7-8
(March 26, 1996) (Harris); Ed Mirvish Enterprises Ltd. (c.o.b. Ed’s Chinese Restaurant) v. Hotel
Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union, Local 175 (Hotel Employees and
Restaurant Employees Union) (Yee Grievance), [1997] O.L.A.A. No. 168 (Harris); Toronto
Transit Commission v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 (Spracklin Grievance) (1999), 82
L.A.C. 94th) 335 (Harris); OPSEU (Kolmann) v. Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services), GSB# 2011-0674 et al. (Mikus); Waterloo (Region) District School
Board v. Custodial and Maintenance Assn. (Linsema Grievance), [2010] O.L.A.A. No. 225
(Moteith); Xstrata Nickel v. Sudbury Mine, Mill ad Smelter Workers – Union Local 598 (CAW)
(McIvor Grievance) (2011), 209 L.A.C. (4th) 206 (Sheehan).
[6] Accordingly, the Union’s application to have the Employer proceed to call its evidence is
dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 1st day of October 2012.
Daniel Harris, Vice-Chair