GSB# 2001-1681

UNION# 2002-0234-0022 [02C074], 2002-0234-0023 [02C075]

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Romanec)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Barry Stephens

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Stephen Giles Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Mike Briscoe Staff Relations Officer Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services

HEARING

June 2, 2005.

Decision

The parties agreed to an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol for the Maplehurst Correctional Complex. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol here. Suffice it to say that the parties have agreed to an expedited process wherein each party provides the vice-chair with written submissions, which include the facts and authorities the party intends to rely upon, one week prior to the hearing. At the hearing, oral evidence is not called, although the vice-chair is permitted to request further information or documentation. In addition, if it becomes apparent to either party, or the vice-chair, that the issues involved in a particular case are of a complex or significant nature, the case may be taken out of the expedited process and processed through “regular” arbitration. Although individual grievors often wish to provide oral evidence at arbitration, the process adopted by the parties provides for a thorough canvassing of the facts prior to the hearing, and leads to a fair and efficient adjudication process.

The grievance in this case raises matters related to allegations that the employer failed to act in good faith with respect to a memorandum of settlement. The union stated at the hearing that it had made attempts to contact the grievor by mail, and through the local's review of its records, in order to submit further particulars and information, but no such information was forthcoming. The union also advised the Board that the grievor was not currently employed by the Ministry.

Having reviewed the evidence presented and the submissions of the parties, it is my view that there is no evidence of a breach of the collective agreement. As a result, the grievance is dismissed.

Dated at Toronto, this 29^th day of August, 2005.