GSB#0583/99, 0584/99
UNION#99B656, 99B657
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between: OPSEU Grievor
(Abrams)
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care) Employer
Before: Owen V. Gray Vice-Chair
For the Griever: Nelson Roland Counsel
For the Employer: Len Hatzis Counsel Management Board Secretariat
Hearing: April 11, 2001 (by conference call); supplemental submissions by e-mail April 14, 16 and 17
DECISION
1The employer, union and grievor are signatories to a “Memorandum of Settlement” dated December 2, 1999, by which they appeared to settle the grievances in GSB Files 0583/99, 0584/99 and 1588/99 as well as an unfair labour practice complaint then before the OLRB and a claim then before the WSIB. Paragraph 5 of that memorandum said that “The Parties that [sic] Vice-chair Owen Gray remain seized of the implementation of the terms of this Memorandum of Settlement.”
2In a letter of November 2, 2000, captioned (in part) “OPSEU v. MOH, OPSEU #s 99B656-657 – GSB #s 0583/99-0584/99, ABRAMS, Gail”, union counsel wrote to the GSB that “[t]he union requests that the above-noted matter be set down for hearing before Owen Gray as soon as possible and that the hearing be held in Windsor.” A hearing was scheduled for Monday, April 23, 2001.
3At the request of the employer, a hearing by conference call was scheduled for and held on April 11, 2001. Counsel for the union and the employer participated, as did David Deluzio. I was advised that Mr. Deluzio is counsel for the grievor, Gail Abrams, in unfair labour practice proceedings against the union now pending at the OLRB, concerning the union’s representation of the grievor in these grievances, including the negotiation of the Memorandum of Settlement.
4After the telephone conference I exchanged e-mail messages with all three counsel. Tempting as it is to trace the course the matter took, the only communication that remains of significance for purposes of this tribunal is the last one, an e-mail to me from union counsel of April 17, 2001:
Further to your e-mail dated Monday, April 16, 2001, the Union confirms that it agrees with the Employer as stated in the second paragraph that the Union is “content to have me [you] simply cancel the hearing scheduled for next Monday, without making any award with respect to the meaning of the last sentence of paragraph 4 of the Minutes of Settlement, on the basis that there is no dispute between the employer and the union about the meaning of that provision.” In the alternative, the Union will be opposing the standing of the grievor at the hearing.
Although Mr. Deluzio had said he would request separate standing on behalf of the grievor at the hearing requested by the union, that was in response to the prospect that the union would seek a binding declaration that the disputed provision means what the union and employer agree it means, and not what the grievor says it means. His primary position on behalf of the grievor was that the OLRB was the appropriate forum for resolution of the grievor’s dispute with the union and employer concerning the Memorandum of Settlement.
5There being no outstanding request that I grant any relief with respect to the Memorandum of Settlement (and, thus, no reason to consider whether the grievor is entitled to standing to oppose such a request), I have directed that the hearing scheduled for April 23, 2001 be cancelled.
Dated at Toronto this 18th day of April, 2001.