GSB# 2014-3490; 2014-3658; 2014-3659; 2014-3660; 2014-3661; 2017-2396; 2017-2397

UNION# 2014-5112-0192; 2014-5112-0216; 2014-5112-0217; 2014-5112-0218; 2014-5112-0219; 2017-5112-0250; 2017-5112-0251

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Dupuis)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Nimal Dissanayake

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Tim Hannigan Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Counsel

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Jonathan Rabinovitch Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel

HEARING

September 7, 2018

Decision

1The Board is seized with a number of grievances filed by Ms. Cassandra Dupuis, who is employed as a Correctional Officer.

2Multiple dates were scheduled to deal with these grievances. A number of them were adjourned, one at the request of the employer, and others at the request of the union. On two further days hearings were scheduled and the parties attended at the Board. However, the arbitration hearing did not commence; the parties used the time attempting to resolve the grievances with my assistance as mediator. At this time none of the grievances have been resolved. As a result of the foregoing two days remain scheduled, February 1 and 25 of 2019. The instant hearing by teleconference was convened to deal with a disagreement between the parties on the scheduling additional hearing dates.

3The union is of the view that four more days should be scheduled as soon as possible. Counsel argued that if scheduling of additional dates is postponed until February 2019, the proceeding, which has already been delayed, would be further delayed into the summer or fall of 2019.

4The employer objected. Counsel took the position that no additional dates should be scheduled until the outcome of the two dates presently scheduled in February 2019 is known. Counsel expressed the employer’s concern that unnecessary costs would be incurred if dates are scheduled now, and are then cancelled, for example as a result of a settlement reached on the February dates.

5I pointed out that there is an obvious way of addressing the concerns of both parties with no detriment to either. I ruled that the four additional days requested by the union could be scheduled in such manner, so that no cancellation charges would be incurred if those days are cancelled on or before February 25, 2019. I ruled that the Registrar of the Board would be directed to schedule the four earliest days mutually available to the parties and to the arbitrator (based on availability on arbdates.com), beyond 30 calendar days from February 25, 2019.

6The oral ruling set out above is hereby confirmed. The Registrar is directed to schedule four additional days in this proceeding on the terms set out at paragraph 5.

7I remain seized. The instant proceeding will continue on the dates scheduled.