GSB#2014-3191, 2016-0039

UNION#2014-0290-0027, 2016-0290-0006

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Thibideau)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Children and Youth Services)

Employer

BEFORE

Felicity D. Briggs

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Gregg Gray Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Karen Martin Treasury Board Secretariat Centre for Employee Relations Employee Relations Advisor

CONFERENCE CALL

February 10, 2017

Decision

1Following a med/arb session held at Roy McMurtry Youth Centre in early November 2016, this Board issued a without prejudice decision that stated, in part, the following:

• Vanessa Thibideau is a Youth Service Officer who filed two grievances dated two years apart both of allege the Employer violated Article 2, Article 3 (disability – duty to accommodate), Article 9 and ASMP policy and all other articles, legislation, policies and procedures. By way of remedy she requested to be made whole and for $100,000.

• This med/arb session was the second time that this grievance was scheduled but did not proceed due to the absence of the grievor. The Employer took issue with the grievor’s continued failure to appear and particularize her grievances.

• After hearing arguments from the parties as to how to proceed I order the parties to exchange all information particular to these matters that would be relied upon for the disposition of the grievance. This exchange is to take place no later than January 15, 2017.

• In the event either parties fail to meet this order the Board can be contacted to hear any request to deal with the matters summarily.

2On February 1, 2017, I was contacted by the Employer’s representative who stated that no particulars had been provided as set out above. I contacted both parties asking for an update. The Union representative confirmed that the grievor had received a copy of my original decision within seven days of it being issued. Further, I was informed by the Union that the grievor indicated that she failed to comply as the result of an extended sick leave which began shortly after Christmas.

3In a later communication with the parties the Employer confirmed that the grievor was, in fact, on sick leave but that leave did not begin until January 14, 2017. The grievor had been at work most of the month of December as scheduled. As a result, the Employer requested that the grievances be dismissed.

4A conference call was held on February 10, 2017 to discuss the Employer’s motion to dismiss the grievances. I heard submissions from both parties. The Union urged that the Employer’s motion should be denied.

5After consideration of this matter, I am of the view that I must agree with the Employer’s request to dismiss the grievances. The grievor had three different opportunities to have these matters heard. She missed two med/arb sessions and when given a third opportunity she failed to meet the very clear instructions to provide particulars regarding her grievances. I find that the reason given – that being sick leave – does not hold up to scrutiny as she had two full months to comply with the Board’s order. She chose not to do so and she did not ask for an extension.

6For those reasons, I am upholding the Employer’s motion and the grievances are denied.

7This decision is without prejudice.