GSB#2013-0936, 2013-0937, 2013-0938

UNION#2013-0228-0052, 2013-0228-0052, 2013-0228-0052

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Ellis)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Attorney General)

Employer

BEFORE

Mary Lou Tims

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Seung Chi Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Roslyn Baichoo Treasury Board Secretariat Labour Practice Group Counsel

HEARING

June 1, 2015

INTERIM DECISION

1The grievor filed three grievances (GSB #’s 2013-0936, 0937 and 0938). The hearing in these matters was scheduled for June 1, 2015 commencing at 10:00 a.m.

2The grievor did not appear, and the hearing was adjourned until 10:30 a.m.

3At that time, Union Counsel advised as follows: On May 29, 2015, the grievor called him at 3:00 p.m. and left a message advising that he needed to speak with him. At around 3:45 p.m. that day, Union Counsel spoke to the grievor. The grievor told him that he just obtained a permanent position and that his employer would not allow him to take time off. Union Counsel informed the grievor that the Board may dismiss his three grievances if he failed to attend at the hearing and the grievor told him that he would check with his employer again. Union Counsel spoke with the grievor again at 4:10 p.m. on May 29, and the grievor told him that his employer denied his request for time off. Union Counsel then advised Employer Counsel that the Union sought an adjournment of the June 1 hearing.

4Union Counsel requested at the June 1 hearing that an adjournment be granted. Employer Counsel took the position that the adjournment should not be granted and that the three grievances should be dismissed, Counsel noting that these matters had been scheduled for three earlier dates, all adjourned.

5After some discussion, Counsel advised that the parties agreed to the following which I now order:

I. The Union will advise the grievor that he is to provide to the Union no later than two weeks from the issuance of this decision any and all evidence upon which he relies in support of the Union’s request for an adjournment.

II. Union Counsel will provide forthwith to Employer Counsel any such evidence which the grievor provides to the Union.

III. If the Employer agrees that an adjournment of the June 1, 2015 hearing was warranted upon review of any evidence provided to it in accordance with para 5(ii), Employer Counsel will so advise Union Counsel and the parties will request that the Board schedule a new hearing date. The Employer reserves the right to argue that any such adjournment should be on terms, and if the parties are unable to reach agreement on such terms, a teleconference will be convened to permit them to deal with such dispute.

IV. If the Union fails to provide evidence to Employer Counsel in accordance with para 5(ii) or if the Employer maintains that the adjournment ought not to be granted and that the grievances should be dismissed after reviewing any evidence provided to it in accordance with para 5(ii), Employer Counsel will advise Union Counsel of the Employer’s position as soon as reasonably possible.

V. Upon the Employer so advising Union Counsel, the parties will forward to the Vice-Chair any evidence provided to the Employer by the Union in accordance with para 5(ii) and will request that the Board schedule a teleconference.

VI. The parties will have the opportunity to argue during such teleconference whether the requested adjournment of the June 1, 2015 proceedings was warranted and whether or not the grievances should be dismissed. Such argument will be made on the basis of the chronology of dates outlined by both Counsel at the June 1, 2015 hearing and the evidence, if any, provided to the Employer by the Union in accordance with para 5(ii). The parties both acknowledge that Union Counsel’s description of what the grievor communicated to him during their May 29, 2015 discussions does not establish the truth of what was reported to Union Counsel by the grievor.

6My jurisdiction in these matters is retained.