Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Savdie) v. The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Government Services), 2013 CanLII 31969

GSB#2011-3785

UNION#2011-0555-0011

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Savdie)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Government Services)

Employer

BEFORE

Daniel Harris

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Christopher Bryden Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Barristers and Solicitors

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Heather McIvor Ministry of Government Services Labour Practice Group Counsel

HEARING

May 23, 2013.

Decision

1This matter first came on for mediation on December 3, 2012. At that time the grievor failed to attend and the matter was adjourned to May 23, 2013 for arbitration. Again, the grievor failed to appear.

2The Union asked that the matter again be adjourned. The Union made several attempts to contact the grievor on the day of the hearing, to no avail.

3The Employer resisted the adjournment request. It said that the allegations dated from 2008, and it would be prejudicial to further extend the delay in this matter. It said there were production requests outstanding and the lengthy delays in this matter were unfair to witnesses who would be called upon to recall events from some time ago. It said that the grievor has shown little interest in progressing these proceedings to completion, and it is a waste of the Board’s resources to continue them. It asked that the grievance be dismissed.

4In reply, the Union said that it was unfair to characterize the grievor as being disinterested. He had assisted the Union in the preparation of detailed particulars. His failure to attend the mediation was said to be an innocent misunderstanding as to the scheduled date. Further, the process has already been extended, so a brief further delay would occasion no prejudice.

5In my view, there is an onus on the grievor to be attentive to the scheduling of his grievance. As I understand it, the grievance resulted from the issuance of a letter of reprimand for being disrespectful to the grievor’s managers. The grievance alleges that the grievor was harassed and discriminated against. Such allegations are serious and should be dealt with promptly. The grievor’s repeated failure to attend at the Board leads me to conclude that the matter should be dismissed unless the grievor can satisfy the Board that there is good reason for his failure to attend on May 23, 2013.

6Accordingly, this matter will be administratively dismissed unless the Union is able to present, prior to the close of business on June 6, 2013, that there was good reason for the grievor’s failure to attend on May 23, 2013.