GSB#2016-1147

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

The Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario (JM)

Association

• and –

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

Employer

BEFORE

Jasbir Parmar

Arbitrator

FOR THE ASSOCIATION

Marisa Pollock Goldblatt Partners LLP Counsel

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Felix Lau Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel

SUBMISSIONS

February 2, 2018

Decision

1In a decision dated November 22, 2017, I addressed the Employer’s motion that this grievance be dismissed. For the reasons outlined therein, I held the following:

47Accordingly, in light of the Grievor’s non-attendance on August 4, 2017, I

order the following:

a. the union is to provide a copy of this decision to the Grievor, and file with the Board proof of service. Delivery through email is sufficient, if the Grievor has provided the Union with an email address as a contact method.

b. this grievance is dismissed, unless the Grievor is able to demonstrate good and sufficient cause for his non-attendance. Any such explanation, along with any supporting documentation, must be filed with the Board no later than 4:00 pm Friday, December 15, 2017.

c. I remain seized relating to any issues arising from implementation of this decision.

2In accordance with my directions, the Union provided proof of service. It indicated the Grievor was advised to provide the Union any explanation with supporting documentation by 9:00 am December 15, 2017 to enable the Union to be able to file it with the Board in accordance with the stipulated timeframe.

3On December 18, 2017, the Union provided the Board a copy of a document provided to the Union by the Grievor via email at 3:43 pm on December 15, 2017. The Union representative, who had left the office by that time, did not access his email and retrieve this email until a later time.

4On its face, the document, dated December 14, 2017, appears to be on Sunnybrook Health Sciences letterhead, and is from Dr. Michael Oultram, “outpatient staff doctor for Sunnybrook psychiatric department”. It is unsigned.

5I asked the Union to make some inquiries and confirm whether Dr. Oultram is a physician with Sunnybrook Hospital and whether the Grievor is currently his patient.

6On January 25, 2018, Union counsel provided the following information via email:

My assistant, [ ..], checked the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and Sunnybrook Hospital websites and did not find a listing for Michael Oultram. [She] also called Sunnybrook Hospital and was advised that there was no Dr. Oultram working at Sunnybrook.

7In light of this information the Employer submits that the grievance should be dismissed because no documentation was filed with the Board prior to 4:00 pm on December 15, 2017 as stipulated in my earlier award.

8In the alternative, the Employer submits it should be determined the Grievor did not demonstrate “good and sufficient cause”. The Employer expressed a number of concerns about the sufficiency of this document, including that it is unsigned, does not contain the doctor’s license number, and that the letterhead does not have any of the Sunnybrook contact information. The Employer submits that this letter is not in fact from a registered physician in Ontario, although it purports to be so.

9The Union made no submission, for what I view as very obvious reasons.

10I agree with both the Employer’s submissions.

11First, I note that where a decision holds that a grievance is dismissed unless certain information is provided by a specific time, a party should be held to that standard strictly (subject to a justifiable explanation for this failure). This is particularly the case where the issue is dismissal of the grievance for failure to comply with the arbitral process. In those circumstances, failing to meet the specific parameters set out in the decision is just another indication there is no reason for the Board to think that the Grievor will comply with the arbitral process in the future.

12Second, even if I were to consider this document that was submitted late, I have grave concerns about the authenticity of this document for all the reasons outlined by the Employer. It was in fact because the document on its face seemed a bit odd that I asked the Union to make inquiries about ‘Dr. Oultram’. In the circumstances, I find the Grievor has not demonstrated good and sufficient case for his non-attendance on August 4, 2017.

13For all these reasons, the grievance is dismissed.