Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-0162.Evans.82-07-20IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATIOh' Under TEE CROWN EhlPLOi'EES COLL.ECTIVE BARGAI~IX ACT Before THE GRIEi'A:;iCE SETTLEXEh4 BOARD Betseen Before: OLBEU (Mr. Bob Evans) - And - Gr‘ieVGT The Crown in Right of Ontario (Liquor Control Board of Ontario) Empioyer J.W. Samuels Vice Chairman J. Best ,Uember W. Lobraico Member 2 For the Griever: B. Evans (representiug himself) 7's: Ihe kzplover: D.K. Gray, Counsel Hi&s, hlorley, Hamilton, Stewart k S:'>rie -2- The grievor came before this Board without benefit of Union representation or counsel. He grieves his termina- tion of employment with the Employer. At the outset, the Employer raised two preliminary objections. Firstly, it was argued that the grievance had been withdrawn by the Union. Secondly, it was argued that there had been undue delay in prosecuting the grievance. In view of our disposition of the first objection, it is un- necessary to deal with the second. The'evidence before us shows that the grievor was released from his employment on August 8, 1979, "for failing to report for work or to present any reason for being absent in the period April 18, 1979 to August 8, 1979" (Exhibits 4 and 9). The grievance appears to have been filed on June 6, 1979 (Exhibits 2, 5 and others.). We had no explanation for the grievance having been filed two months before the actual dismissal. The evidence then indicates that the Union with- drew the grievance sometime in early summer 1980. We get this from several written notes appearing on Exhibits 2 and 6, ar.d the testimony of Mr. MacDougall, the Staff Relations Officer for the Employer. Some confusion o?. this point is raised by the fact that, on September 14, 1980, the griever received a letter from a solicitor for the Linion informing the zrievor that the Cnion would no longer represent him in . ‘, -3- this matter and suggesting to him that he pursue the matter himself before the Workmen's Compensation Board and/or our Board (Exhibit 12). The grievor then came to the Grievance Settlement Board in mid-October 1980 and said he would re- present himself (Exhibit 11). Thereafter, there is further correspondence between this Board and the Union wherein the Union again withdrew this matter (Exhibit 10 and letters on file at the Grievance Settlement Board). At our first meeting on February 8, 1982, this Board indicated that it wanted to hear from Mr. Everett Baker, the General Secretary of the Union, concerning the'. withdrawal of this grievance. We ruled that, pursuant to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the Board was seized of the matter by the grievor personally as of October'. 16, 1980, and that thereafter it was not open to the Union to withdraw.the grievance. However, it could be that the grievance was withdrawn before this time by the Union, and we should hear from Mr. Baker on the point. We met next on May 25. Both parties asked for an adjournment, which was granted. However, before we adjourned, we heard from Mr. Baker's counsel concerning the reason counsel had advised Mr. Baker not to answer the sub poena issued by this Board. In short, counsel was concerned that the Union should not be made to answer about the reasons for its withdrawal of the grievance. As well, he argued that the Beard should not embark on its own inquiry. We explained that we were not interested in c:ie reasons, but only the fact and timing of the wizbdraurl. II-. the end, the grievor asked for a sub poena to 2. Ba:<or and this was granted. We agreed to res'me on July 7. The sub poena tc Mr. Baker was issued and given to Mr. Evans for service. PC,--. Evar.s decided not to serve it, and not to have Mr. Baker testif:/. When we resumed on JULY 7; this Board ruled that the evidence before it was sufficient to show that the grievance had been withdrawn before October 1980, and there- fore the matter could not come before this Board. We had given the griever the oppsrtunicy to call Mr. Baker to disprove this evidence, bat the griever had chosen not to call this witness. We eqlained clearly to the grievor that, if h& is unhappy with the way in which the matter was handled by the Union, there are other fora for this deter- mination. But we can deal only with grievances properly prosecuted p ursuant to t2.e Collective Agreement or the legislation. In this case, the grievance was withdrawn. This is the record of what ;-as done in this matter. -5- DATED at London, Ontario tiis 20:s day of July, 1982. de’ . Member W. Lo5raico Member 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. -G- LIST OF EXHIBITS Letter of January 20, 1981 - Gray to Goss Letter of June 6, 1979 - Evans to Ross - and not attached Letter of August 14, 1979 - LCBO to Evans - and Application for Superannuation Benefits Letter of termination, October 15, 1979 Letter of March 13, 1980 - OLBEU to LCBO Lette: of April 1, 1980 - OLBEU to Grievance Settle- ment 3oard Letter of April 25, 1980 - Goss to LC30 Letter of May 1, 1980 - LCBO to OLBEU Letters of December 9 and 16, 1980 Letter of July 24, 1981 - Goss to LCBO Note to the Grievance Settlement Board from the Grievor, received October 16, 1980 Letter of September 14, 1980 - Heisey to Evans . :. ‘~