GSB#2011-2050, 2011-3375, 2011-3554, 2011-3555, 2011-3556, 2011-3557, 2011-3558,

2011-3559, 2011-3560, 2011-3561, 2011-3562, 2011-3563, 2011-3564, 2011-3565, 2011-3566,

2011-3567, 2011-3568, 2011-3569, 2011-3570, 2011-3571, 2011-3572, 2011-3573, 2011-3574,

2011-3575

UNION#2011-0532-0015; 2012-0532-0003; 2012-0532-0004; 2012-0532-0005;

2012-0532-0006, 2012-0532-0007, 2012-0532-0008, 2012-0532-0009, 2012-0532-0010,

2012-0532-0011, 2012-0532-0012; 2012-0532-0013; 2012-0532-0014; 2012-0532-0015,

2012-0532-0016, 2012-0532-0017, 2012-0532-0018, 2012-0532-0019, 2012-0532-0020,

2012-0532-0021, 2012-0532-0022, 2012-0532-0023, 2012-0532-0024; 2012-0532-0025

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Gordon)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Environment)

Employer

BEFORE

Daniel Harris

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Eric del Junco Counsel

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Kevin Dorgan Ministry of Government Services Labour Practice Group Counsel

HEARING

September 19, 2012.

Decision

1These proceedings began as a lay-off grievance filed on behalf of Mark Gordon dated August 4, 2011; the hearing commenced on February 22, 2012 as a mediation-arbitration. Since then, 23 grievances have been filed against the employer’s decisions to deny the grievor the right to bump into other positions. All of those grievances have been consolidated with the lay-off grievance and came on for a mediation-arbitration process on September 19, 2012. At that time the parties jointly submitted that all matters were to be heard together, and the Union brought an application that the Employer be ordered to proceed first.

2Since these matters are proceeding as a mediation-arbitration, the decisions of the Board have no precedential value pursuant to article 22.16.7, which reads as follows:

22.16.7 Decisions reached through the mediation/arbitration process shall have no precedential value unless the parties agree otherwise.

3The Union conceded that the weight of the Board’s jurisprudence supports the proposition that it should proceed first. The thrust of its submissions was that it was open to me to ignore that jurisprudence. Having reviewed the authorities and the submissions of the parties, I see no reason to depart from those established authorities.

4In addition, particulars of the lay-off grievance delivered by the Union make allegations of bad faith. That is, the Union says that the grievor was targeted rather than the position he held. The weight of the jurisprudence also requires that a party making such allegations should proceed first so that the other party may be well enough informed to be able to respond to them. Again, I see no reason to depart from those well-established authorities.

5The parties relied upon the following authorities: OPSSEU (Kerna) v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), GSB# 2002-0944; OPSEU (Brimicombe/Union) v. Ontario (Ministry of Labour), GSB #2007-2529 et al. (Dissanayake); Ed Mirvish Enterprises (Ed’s Chinese and Ed’s Seafood) v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union, Local 75, OLRB File# A/9508216-7-8 (March 26, 1996) (Harris); Ed Mirvish Enterprises Ltd. (c.o.b. Ed’s Chinese Restaurant) v. Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union, Local 175 (Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union) (Yee Grievance), [1997] O.L.A.A. No. 168 (Harris); Toronto Transit Commission v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 (Spracklin Grievance) (1999), 82 L.A.C. 94^th) 335 (Harris); OPSEU (Kolmann) v. Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services), GSB# 2011-0674 et al. (Mikus); Waterloo (Region) District School Board v. Custodial and Maintenance Assn. (Linsema Grievance), [2010] O.L.A.A. No. 225 (Moteith); Xstrata Nickel v. Sudbury Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers – Union Local 598 (CAW) (McIvor Grievance) (2011), 209 L.A.C. (4^th) 206 (Sheehan).

6Accordingly, the Union’s application to have the Employer proceed to call its evidence is dismissed.