GSB#2013-0904, 2013-0905, 2013-0906, 2013-1183

UNION#2013-0616-0013, 2013-0616-0014, 2013-0616-0015, 2013-0616-0021

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Cusack)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Ken Petryshen

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Christopher Bryden Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Counsel

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Cathy Phan Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel

CONFERENCE CALL

April 22, 2016

Decision

1At the outset of this proceeding, I had before me four grievances dated April 16, 2013, filed by Ms. B. Cusack and the issue of whether Ms. Cusack had voluntarily resigned her employment on April 12, 2013. Ms. Cusack had been employed as a Registered Nurse at the North Bay Jail. The parties agreed to proceed first with the dispute about whether Ms. Cusack’s resignation was voluntary. In a decision dated January 6, 2016, I determined that Ms. Cusack had voluntarily resigned her employment at the North Bay Jail on April 12, 2013. Subsequent to the release of the decision, the Union requested that a hearing be scheduled to deal with Ms. Cusack’s four grievances and the parties agreed to continue this proceeding on April 26, 2016. The Union now requests that the hearing scheduled for April 26, 2016, be adjourned. I entertained submissions on the Union’s adjournment request during a conference call at 5:00 p.m. on April 22, 2016.

2Union counsel advised that there were two reasons for the Union’s request to adjourn the April 26 hearing. One of the reasons was that Ms. Cusack did not have the necessary funds to finance travel to Toronto for the hearing. Ms. Cusack is employed as a Registered Nurse in Manitoba. When Union counsel sought the Employer’s consent to adjourn the hearing, he was aware only of the financial reason for the adjournment when he spoke to Employer counsel. The Employer did not consent to an adjournment. After further discussion with Ms. Cusack on the day of the conference call, Union counsel indicated that he became aware of another reason for the adjournment request, namely that Ms. Cusack had recently injured herself during a fall and therefore was not medically fit to travel to a hearing in Toronto. Union counsel had attempted to inform Employer counsel about this additional reason for the adjournment, but he was unable to contact her so she heard about this reason for the first time during the conference call. Union counsel indicated that Ms. Cusack was taking pain medication for her injuries and that the medication made her drowsy.

3After hearing what counsel had to say about the Union’s request to adjourn the hearing, I advised counsel that I would grant the Union’s adjournment request. It would have been preferable if Ms. Cusack had advised Union counsel earlier about her reasons for not being able to attend the hearing. However, I was satisfied in the circumstances that the medical reason justified the adjournment of the hearing. It was unnecessary to decide whether the financial reason by itself would have justified an adjournment. Accordingly, the hearing scheduled for Tuesday, April 26, 2016, is hereby adjourned. The hearing of Ms. Cusack’s grievances will continue on a date that is mutually agreeable to the parties.