GSB# 2002-3143
UNION# 2003-0530-0014
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Millar)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFORE
Marilyn A. Nairn
Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
Ed Holmes Ryder Wright Blair & Doyle Barristers and Solicitors
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Yasmeena Mohamed Senior Counsel Management Board Secretariat
HEARING
March 24, 2004.
Interim Order
This grievance concerns the non-renewal of an unclassified contract. As noted in an interim order dated October 22, 2003, the parties are agreed that I have the jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter.
This hearing originally convened on June 5, 2003. At that time the matter was adjourned because of issues of representation between the grievor and OPSEU. The matter reconvened on October 21, 2003. On that day the parties attempted to mediate a settlement of the grievance. Those efforts were not successful. At the conclusion of the day, following representations by the parties, certain orders with respect to production were made which are set out in the interim order dated October 22, 2003. That order also noted that eight hearing days were to be scheduled in consultation with the parties.
Continuation dates were set. A notice of proceeding was forwarded by the Board to the parties on November 3, 2003. The matter was set to reconvene on March 23, 24, April 1, 2, 13, 14, and May 5 and 17, 2004. On March 23, 2004 the grievor did not attend the hearing. Counsel for OPSEU understood the grievor's absence to reflect the issue of representation rights; that OPSEU was seeking her commitment to work with counsel retained by OPSEU and not through or with an agent.
An adjournment was granted. I ruled that the matter would reconvene the following scheduled day, March 24, 2004. If the grievor was absent I advised OPSEU that I would be inquiring as to whether or not it intended to proceed with the hearing of the grievance. I further advised the parties that no further adjournment would be granted based on any issue of representation. The union undertook to communicate the ruling to the grievor.
The matter reconvened on March 24, 2004. At that time the Board and the parties were in receipt of a letter from the grievor faxed to the Board on or about 9:04am that morning. The letter sets out two concerns. The grievor asserts that she did not receive proper notice of the scheduled hearing dates and that union counsel failed to send her documentation and requested information in a timely way. The letter requests that the hearing commence on April 1, 2004 in order that she may be given an opportunity to be present.
I heard the representations of the parties. While the union advised that it denied and would vigorously defend the allegations contained in the letter, it argued that the adjournment ought to be granted to April 1, 2004 as there would be no substantial prejudice to the employer. The employer opposed the adjournment taking the position that it was an abuse of process and would significantly prejudice the employer.
I ruled orally that I would allow the adjournment of today’s date. These are my reasons. The union provided me with copies of correspondence it asserted were forwarded to the grievor which refute her claims made in the letter and referred to other communications with the grievor to the same effect. The union also asserted that union counsel met with the grievor on March 11, 2004 to further prepare for the hearing, at which time the grievor indicted that she had not received notice of the hearing dates. When those dates were provided to her, the union asserted, the grievor did not identify any problem arising from any delay in receiving the notice or any documentation that would interfere with her ability or readiness to attend on those days.
The position of the union on the allegations made by the grievor has not been tested here. I have not heard from the grievor and, in the normal course, a hearing would be convened in order to determine whether any asserted lack of notice was sufficiently established so as to warrant any delay in the hearing process. In this case however the grievor asks that the hearing commence on April 1, 2004. She obviously has notice of that date and has indicated her intention and ability to attend on that date. That obviates any need to address any issue of notice in this proceeding.
I therefore am allowing the request. This matter is adjourned and will now convene at 10:00am, Thursday, April 1, 2004 at Suite 600, 180 Dundas Street West, Toronto, Ontario for the purpose of hearing the evidence and representations of the parties with respect to the issues arising out of the grievance filed.
Dated at Toronto this 24th day of March, 2004.