GSB# 2016-0744
UNION# 2016-5112-0070
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Ruddock-Rhoden)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFORE
Ken Petryshen Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION
Tim Hannigan Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Counsel
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Regina Wong Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel
TELECONFERENCE
September 13, 2018
Decision
1In a conference call with counsel I was provided with follow-up information relating to a grievance filed by Ms. E. Ruddock-Rhoden dated June 1, 2016, and a decision I issued dated July 30, 2018. Ms. E. Ruddock-Rhoden had worked in office administrative support for the Ministry. The relevant features of the July 30, 2018 decision are as follows:
[1] … Ruddock-Rhoden was on a leave of absence from approximately June 2008 until June 2010. Her grievance relates to the fact that she did not receive pension credits for the period of time she was on the leave of absence. There is no dispute that contributions on her behalf were not made to OPTrust for the period of time she was on her leave of absence. Ms. Ruddock-Rhoden claims that the Employer misled her about the process required for securing pension credits while on a leave of absence. Union counsel indicated that Ms. Ruddock-Rhoden also takes the position that she had not been paid at the appropriate hourly rate for a period of time and that this pay issue is also covered by her grievance. There is no reference to the pay issue in the grievance dated June 1, 2016. Apart from its position that there has not been a violation of the Collective Agreement, the Employer asserts that the grievance was not filed within the time limits set out in the Collective Agreement.
[2] This article 22.16 matter first came on for hearing on January 5, 2018. The parties made efforts to settle the outstanding issues on that day, but were unsuccessful. Ms. Ruddock-Rhoden did not attend that hearing in person, but was in contact with Union counsel by teleconference. On agreement of the parties, Ms. Ruddock-Rhoden’s grievance was scheduled for arbitration to be heard on July 27, 2018.
[3] Ms. Ruddock-Rhoden did not appear at the hearing on July 27, 2018, by 10:00 a.m. and she did not appear after the matter had been set down for at least thirty minutes. She did not contact Union counsel to provide a reason for her non-attendance, nor did she contact the Grievance Settlement Board (“the Board”) to explain her failure to attend the hearing. Employer counsel requested that the grievance dated June 1, 2016, be dismissed. I was not inclined to dismiss the grievance without giving Ms. Ruddock-Rhoden the opportunity to provide an explanation for her failure to appear at the hearing. Therefore, I hereby direct Ms. Ruddock-Rhoden to provide a written explanation to the Board through Union counsel by no later than August 15, 2018, with respect to the reason or reasons for her non-attendance at the Board on July 27, 2018, and with respect to the reason or reasons why adequate notice of her non-attendance was not provided to Union counsel or to the Board. Failure to respond to this direction by August 15, 2018, or the failure to provide adequate reasons for non-attendance at the Board on July 27, 2018, or adequate reasons for not providing notice of her non-attendance may result in the dismissal of the grievance dated June 1, 2016.
2Union counsel has advised that the decision containing the direction set out above was forwarded by email to Ms. Ruddock-Rhoden and was also mailed to her. He also advised that there has been no written response to the Board’s direction. In these circumstances I find it appropriate to dismiss the grievance. Accordingly, Ms. Ruddock-Rhoden’s grievance dated June 1, 2016, is hereby dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 13th day of September, 2018.