GSB#2010-0007, 2010-0029

UNION#2010-0542-0010, 2010-0542-0009

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Amurao)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Joseph D. Carrier

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Sheila Riddell Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Barristers and Solicitors

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Jennifer Richards Ministry of Government Services Labour Practice Group Counsel

CONFERENCE CALL

April 5, 2012.

Decision

1The substantive issue in the matter before me is the grievance of Ms. Fidela Amurao alleging that she was unjustly terminated.

2There have been significant delays in processing the termination grievance of Ms. Fidela Amurao to hearing. The termination was confirmed on February 22, 2012. The matter was first set down for hearing on February of 2011. For various reasons thereafter, including those outlined in decisions of the Board on August 11, 2011 and March 9, 2012 it has yet to proceed on the merits. There are currently scheduled several hearing days, when it was hoped that evidence on substantive issues might commence, the first of those being April 23, 2012. However, a further element has now been introduced which might lead to even further delay. That issue was dealt with by teleconference as follow:

3This is to confirm the teleconference discussion I had with counsel, Ms. Riddell and Ms. Richards on April 5, 2012.

4The Union, by Ms. Riddell, moved to adjourn the April and May hearing dates on the basis that:

1. The Grievor would be unable to attend due to medical reasons

2. and due to the loss of a significant family member in February

5The employer opposed the adjournment for the time being pending production of the existing medical note and, more importantly, a more comprehensive medical explanation of the Grievor’s inability to attend.

6Although sympathetic to both issues, a more substantive medical would be required for the employer’s consent.

7I ruled orally that there was as yet insufficient information available upon which to grant the adjournment. The motion was declined on the understanding that the Union would produce further medical information on or before Friday, April 13.

8In the event the information is not produced by then and/or is insufficient to elicit the employer’s consent, the request to adjourn could be addressed at the next scheduled hearing day in April (April 23).