Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-0146.Clarke.81-10-02146/81 (INTERIM DECISION) IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION under The CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD ,.. I.. .;.: Bet'ween:. MS. Eulalee E. Clarke Griever - And - The Crown, in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Government Services) Employer Before: -- For the Griever: For the Employer: Hearing: - Mr. E.~B. Jolliffe, Q.C. Vice chairman Mr. R. Russell Member MS. M. Gibb Member Mr. N. Luczay, Classification Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union MT. E. Moses, Sen.ior Personnel Administrator Ministry of Government Services September 17, 1981 - 2 - INTERIM DECISION This case came on for hearing on the morning of Thursday, September 17, 1981,. at which time the parties made .application for an adjournmentsine die, of which the Registrar had been notified on the previous day. In the circumstances, it was thought proper that a panel of the Board should be convened to hear the represen- tations of the parties and their reasons for requesting indefinite postponement of a hearing which had already been adjourned in July. The background of the case is that Ms. E. Clarke presented a classification grievance on December 2, 1980, which was rejected on'January 20, 1981, by the executive director in the administration division of the Ministry of Government Services. On February 18 the grievance was referred to this Board, which sent an acknowledgement to both parties on February 25. One week later, Mr. E. Moses, senior personnel administrator, gave notice that the employer would be raising an objection to arbitrability, which was also duly acknowledged. In June, 1981, the Registrar gave notice that a hearing would be held on July 7. Short ly thereafter Mr. Moses -3- asked for an adjournment on the ground that an important witness to be called by the employer was in the hospital. The Union agreed. After consultation with both parties at a regular scheduling meeting, the matter was listed to be heard on September 17: Notices of that hearing were dated August 24. Mr. Moses agrees that he received notice on August 28. According to Mr. Luczay. it reached the bargaining agent "probably" in the last week of,August, and certainly before September 4, when he attempted without success to inform the grievor. At that time the employer's witness referred to above had just been released from the hospital. However, Mr. Luczay and Mr. Moses were not aware the grievor was on a vacation leave, scheduled to extend from August 20 to September 21. Neither the grievor nor the employer had advised the bargaining agent of the ,vacation leave, which had been arranged by the employer and the grievor 'in the month of May, 1981. Mr. Luczay states that the grievor does not have a telephone at home and it was therefore difficult to commun- icate with her. Mr. Luczay tried to reach her by telephone at her office on September 4, at which time he was not told that she had gone on vacation and was still away. He went to her home on Monday, September 14, and told her of the hearing scheduled for September 17. She replied that she had "other plans." The only appropriate comment on this unfortunate chain of events is that there appears to have been a break- down of communication between the employer, the bargaining agent and the grievor, for which all of them share'respon- sibility. The Board is satisfied that there was no intention to delay or avoid the hearing on either side: indeed the parties emphasized that they wished the matter to be disposed of, it being of some importance to both of them. It is, however, regrettable that the grievor did not tell her representatives of vacation plans, that a member of the staff in the employer's office did not inform Mr. Luczay ' why- she was away, and it is equally regrettable that the . parties could not proceed on September 17, sometime after their spokesman had consented to that date at a regular scheduling meeting. Nevertheless., in fairness to the parties.and having regard to all the unfortunate circumstances which have-been recited herein, the Board decided, after consideration, to grant the adjournment, but not sin% die. Instead, with the approval of the parties and the Registrar, it was adjourned to be heard on Friday, October 9, at.10 a.m. Further, after consideration, the Board is of the opinion that it would not be proper to adjourn a case for the -5- second or third time without hearing explanations from the parties. The proper approach to adjournments, in proceedings like these --- as in others --- is that they should occur by reason of necessity rather than convenience. If proceedings _ under-the Crown Employees Collective.Bargaining Act are to have the.respect and consideration to which they are entitled, this Board cannot be seen to grant adjournments casually or care- lessly, and certainly not in response to telephone calls a day or two before the scheduled hearing, even though such adjournments be sought by both parties. An arbitration hearing is the'ultimate step in the grievance proceedure, which has, been devised under the applicable statute and agreed to by the parties, both of whom must have intended that the process be taken seriously. From time to time adjournments may be unavoidable there are others which could be avoided by due care and diligence. Obviously, needless delays result in a waste of money and human resources. We believe it tom be,important that the arbitral process should not be conducted in disorderly or wasteful fashion. , -6 - DATED at Rockwood, Ontario this 2nd day of October, 1981. Mr. R. Russell Member