Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-0606.Chadwick.84-03-06Between: IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Before: OLBEJJ (K. Chadwick) - And - Grievor The Crown in Right of Ontario (Liquor Control Board of Ontario) Employer R.L. Verity, Q.C. Vice Chairman F. Taylor Member E.R. O'Kelly Member For the Griever: A.M. Heisey, Counsel Blake, Cassels & Graydon For the Employer: C.G. Riggs, Counsel Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie Hearing: February 28, 1984 c - 2 - INTERIM DECISION In a Grievance dated September 14, 1983, K. Chadwick, grieves a 20 day suspension imposed upon him by the Employer. At the outset of the Hearing, Counsel for the Union sought an adjournment on the grounds that he had been unsuccessful in obtain- ing instructions from the Grievor. The Employer's Counsel opposed the motion alleging that there had been a previous adjournment in this matter upon consent, and that no purpose would be served by a further adjournment. The Grievor was not present at the Hearing. Union Counsel was retained in this matter on January 21, 1984, for the purposes of representing the Grievor in two separate Grievances, namely a 20 day suspension grievance and a dismissal qrievance. On that date, Mr. Heisey wrote to the Grievor for instructions to properly prepare for the suspension hearing which was scheduled for February 13, 1984. Having heard nothing from the Grievor, Union Counsel made the decision on February 10 to request an adjournment of the February 13 suspension grievance, and obtained the consent to that adjournment from the Employer's Counsel, Mr. Riggs. On February LO, Mr. Heisey again wrote to the Grievor for instructions. Accordingly, the suspension grievance was rescheduled for hearing on February 28, 1984. Numerous efforts were made to contact the Grievor, both by personnel in Mr. Heisey's office and by the Union. On February 20, the Grievor telephoned Mr. Heisey and explained that he~had just received Counsel's letter of January 27. Apparently, the Griever, had chanqed his, address and telephone number in the interim,and had.failed to advise the Parties of that fact. In any event, Mr. Heisey arranged to meet with the'Grievor on February 21 and February 25 in order to prepare the case for hearing. The Grievor failed to attendat Mr. Heisey's office on either date, and in addition failed to appear at the Hearing on February 28. Additional attempts by Mr. Heisey to contact the Grievor on the afternoon of February 27,and prior to the Hearing on the morning of February 28 were also unsuccessful. The Board is satisfied that Mr. Heisey has pursued every possible avenue, and has made every reasonable effort to obtain instructions from his client. For whatever'the reason, the Grievor has failed to co-operate with his own Counsel in the pursuit of this Grievance. No reason was advanced at the'Hearing to explain or justify this lack of co-operation. In our opinion, no useful purpose would be served by a further adjournment. For the above reasons, the Union's request for an adjournment is denied. Following the Board's ruling, the Union then withdrew the Grievance. DATED at Brantford, Ontario, this 6th day of March, A-D.; 1984. R.L. Verity, Q.C. Vice Chairman