GSB#2017-1142; 2017-1143; 2017-1144; 2017-1188; 2017-1189; 2017-1190; 2017-1191; 2017-1193; 2017-1194; 2017-1391; 2017-1392; 2017-1393; 2017-1533; 2017-1534; 2017-1535; 2017-1536; 2017-1537; 2017-1538; 2017-1539; 2017-1634

UNION#2017-0234-0112; 2017-0234-0113; 2017-0234-0114; 2017-0234-0115; 2017-0234-0116; 2017-0234-0117; 2017-0234-0118; 2017-0234-0120; 2017-0234-0121; 2017-0234-0129; 2017-0234-0130; 2017-0234-0131; 2017-0234-0143; 2017-0234-0144; 2017-0234-0145; 2017-0234-0146;

2017-0234-0147; 2017-0234-0148; 2017-0234-0149; 2017-0234-0134

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Derjugin et al)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Solicitor General)

Employer

BEFORE

Ken Petryshen

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Chris Donovan (Counsel) Dewart Gleason LLP

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Peter Dailleboust (Senior Counsel) Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch

HEARING

September 18, 2020 (by videoconference)

DECISION

1I have before me a number of grievances filed by Bailiffs. A hearing by Zoom videoconference took place on September 18, 2020, during which the parties discussed process issues.

2One of the issues counsel spoke to was the request by Mr. Pacheco to be granted intervener status in this proceeding. Mr. Pacheco appeared at the hearing and was placed in a breakout room. The participants on the Employer and Union sides were also placed in breakout rooms. When I joined Mr. Pacheco’s breakout room later in the morning to give him an update, I discovered that he had left the Zoom meeting. I sent him an email asking if he intended to return to the meeting, but did not receive a response.

3This decision deals only with the question of Mr. Pacheco’s request to obtain intervener status in this proceeding. I have determined that this matter shall be addressed as follows. If Mr. Pacheco no longer wishes to obtain intervener status, he should advise the Grievance Settlement Board (“the Board”) of this decision in writing as soon as possible. Assuming Mr. Pacheco still wants to obtain intervener status, counsel for the Employer and counsel for the Union are directed to advise the Board and Mr. Pacheco of the Employer’s and the Union’s position on this issue by no later than October 9, 2020. If a party is opposing Mr. Pacheco’s request for intervener status, counsel for that party is directed to provide to the Board and to Mr. Pacheco, also by no later than October 9, 2020, a written summary of his party’s position and any case law he intends to rely on. This issue will be addressed on October 23, 2020, the next hearing date scheduled for this proceeding. If Mr. Pacheco fails to appear at the hearing on October 23, 2020, to speak to his request for intervener status, his request may be dismissed.