Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Gaunce) v. The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2017 CanLII 77172

GSB#2012-1875, 2012-1876, 2012-2036, 2012-2037, 2012-2038, 2012-2039, 2012-2040, 2012-2041, 2012-2042, 2012-2043, 2012-2322

UNION#2012-0411-0021, 2012-0411-0014, 2012-0411-0017, 2012-0411-0018, 2012-0411-0019, 2012-0411-0020, 2012-0411-0021, 2012-0411-0022, 2012-0411-0023, 2012-0411-0024, 2012-0411-0028

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Gaunce)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Barry B. Fisher

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Tim Hannigan Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Counsel

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Stewart McMahon Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel

HEARING

September 26, 2017

DECISION

1On December 8th, 2016, I issued an Interim Award requiring that the parties had to keep to a tight schedule so that the case could proceed in regards to the determination of whether the Grievor had been properly accommodated in the past and whether she had experienced harassment and discrimination with respect to her disability both under the terms of the Collective Agreement and under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

2At the hearing held on September 26, 2017, the Employer was present, Union Counsel was present but the Grievor was not present.

3Union Counsel advised the Board that the Grievor had given proper notice of the hearing and that she had told him that she had no intention of attending. Union Counsel advised the Board that he had warned the Grievor of the consequences of her non-attendance. He also explained to her that due to a recent change in Board policy, if she desired, the Board would adjourn the case and reschedule it at a later date in Ottawa where she lives. She still indicated that she neither wished to have an adjournment nor have the location moved to Ottawa.

4The Union indicated that because of the Grievor’s willful failure to attend they had no evidence to present on the remaining issues of the case.

5The Employer asked that the remainder of the grievances be dismissed and that I declare that the Grievor’s actions be determined to be an abuse of process, citing Vice Chair Dissanayke’s decision in OPSEU (Ellis) v Ministry of Finance #1866/99.

6As the Union presented no evidence to support the Grievor’s allegations, I dismiss the grievances set out above.

7I do not feel that is it necessary for me to decide if the Grievor’s actions constitute an abuse of process so I will not decide this issue.