GSB# 2003-1935, 2003-2456
UNION# OLB377/03, OLB472/03
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Liquor Boards Employees’ Union (Logan)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Liquor Control Board of Ontario)
Employer
BEFORE
Nimal V. Dissanayake
Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
Kourosh Farrokhzad Engelmann Gottheil Barristers and Solicitors
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Gordon Fitzgerald Counsel Liquor Control Board of Ontario
HEARING
October 22, 2004.
Decision
The Board was seized with two grievances filed by the grievor, Mr. Jeff Logan. The first dated August 18, 2003 (GSB File No: 2003-1935) related to a three day suspension without pay, and the second dated September 24, 2003 (GSB File No: 2003-2456) related to his termination effective 22, 2003.
The Registrar’s office issued a formal notice of hearing to both parties setting out the date, time and place of hearing. When the hearing was convened at the appointed time, the employer was represented by legal counsel, and two management personnel. Legal counsel and a union representative were present for the union. However, I was advised that the grievor had not shown up. I recessed for one half hour in the event that the grievor had been delayed for some reason. However, when the hearing was reconvened the grievor was still not present. I instructed each counsel to address the Board as to why the grievor was not present, and the consequences of his absence. The following facts emerged from the counsels’ presentations.
The instant grievances were initially scheduled for hearing on January 12, 2004. That hearing, however, was adjourned on consent due to the grievor’s unavailability. The hearing was subsequently rescheduled for June 7, 2004 and notices of hearings were duly issued. This hearing also did not take place, because the union again requested an adjournment due to the unavailability of the grievor. This time however, the employer sought and received from the union three conditions for the adjournment. These conditions, set out in a letter dated June 2, 2004 from employer counsel to union counsel are as follows:
(a) that the Union will contact the Grievance Settlement Board to canvas potential dates for the commencement of the hearing, said dates to be consistent with the parties’ hopes to obtain the earliest mutually convenient dates in October, 2004;
(b) that the LCBO will not incur any liability for the period of time between January 12, 2004 and the date of which the hearing commences;
(c) that in the event the grievor is unable to attend the hearing on the next scheduled date, the grievances will be withdrawn.
Union counsel advised the Board that the union had done its utmost to communicate to the grievor, notice of this hearing. Copies of the notice of hearing were mailed to the last permanent address on file, as well as an address in Vancouver which had been provided. Counsel personally made numerous telephone calls and left messages on the grievor’s voice-mail in Vancouver. The grievor did not respond to any of these communications.
Counsel for the union advised the Board that in these circumstances, in view of condition (c) (supra) under which it obtained the adjournment of the June 7, 2004 hearing, the union had no choice but to withdraw the grievances and that it was doing so.
It follows that both grievances are withdrawn and the files are closed.
This decision setting out the disposition of the two grievances is issued at the joint request of the parties.
Dated this 26th day of October, 2004 at Toronto, Ontario