GSB# 1999-0258, 1999-0712, 1999-1260

UNION# 1999-0517-0004, 1999-0517-0006, 1999-0517-0014

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Group Grievance)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)

Employer

BEFORE

Ken Petryshen

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Ed Holmes Ryder, Wright, Blair & Doyle Barristers and Solicitors

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Meredith Brown & Benjamin Parry Counsel Management Board Secretariat

HEARING

January 11, 2005.

Decision

At a hearing on January 11, 2005, I had before me three grievances filed in 1999 by employees at the Toronto West Detention Centre which raise certain pension issues. There are two group grievances, each with a number of signatories, and an individual grievance filed by Mr. M. Roy. Mr. Parry, on behalf of the Employer, took the position that the matter could not proceed until the Union provided the Employer with particulars with respect to each of the grievances. Mr. Parry had recently sent the Union a detailed written request for particulars. Mr. Holmes, on behalf of the Union, did not oppose an order directing the Union to provide particulars. Accordingly, I hereby direct the Union to provide the Employer with written particulars of the remedies it seeks with respect to these grievances and written particulars of the facts on which it and the grievors may seek to rely. Counsel agreed that only an order in this form was required at this time and that any unresolved issues concerning the adequacy of the particulars will be referred to me. Mr. Parry reserved the right to raise certain matters at the appropriate time, including the jurisdiction of the Grievance Settlement Board to hear these grievances.

Mr. Roy attended at the hearing with counsel, Mr. D. Reiter. The Union and the Employer took the position that the Union had carriage of these grievances and that Mr. Roy did not have the right to be represented by Mr. Reiter at this proceeding. After entertaining submissions on this issue, I ruled orally at the hearing that Mr. Roy did not have the right to be represented by counsel in the circumstances, other than counsel selected by the Union. The Grievance Settlement Board has consistently held that the Union has carriage of a grievance at arbitration and that it alone has the right to decide who will represent grievances at arbitration. In this instance, the Union has decided that Mr. Holmes well represent it with respect to these grievances.

The hearing of this matter will continue on dates to be scheduled in the usual manner.

Dated at Toronto, this 13^th^ day of January, 2005