1705-00-U Brenda Currine Perrin, Applicant v. Ontario Public Service Staff Union (“OPSSU”), Responding Party v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Intervenor.
BEFORE: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 23, 2001
1The Board has received the submissions of the applicant contained in a letter dated May 17, 2001. They are unhelpful. They do not respond to the issues raised in the response, nor to the issue identified in the Board’s decisions of April 5 and 30, 2001.
2The applicant has not provided a copy of the 1998-1999 collective agreement. Counsel has provided certain extracts from what he says is that document which he asserts should lead the Board to conclude it was the collective agreement in effect at the relevant times. Counsel does not explain how they lead one to that conclusion. He asserts that the articles copied demonstrate that the applicant was a permanent employee at the time of her discharge. Again, the logic of this submission is not self-evident.
3However, even assuming the case is as pleaded by the responding party, i.e. that the applicant was a temporary employee and that the collective agreement did not provide her with a substantive right to grieve discharge, suspension and discipline, there are still disputed factual issues. Even if there was no right to grieve the employer’s decision, the applicant was still a member of the bargaining unit. There are disputed facts about the actions of the responding party which cannot be resolved on the basis of the pleadings.
4Accordingly, the Registrar is directed to list this matter for a single day for the purposes of conducting a consultation.
5Before the consultation is held, the Board directs that the responding party file a copy of the 1998-1999 collective agreement. The Board further directs the responding party to state whether it agrees that this document is the relevant collective agreement. If the responding party asserts that it is not, it is directed to file a complete statement of why not, and provide copies of any ancillary documents in support of that assertion.
6The process at the hearing will be determined by the panel of the Board dealing with the consultation. However, the applicant or her counsel should be prepared at the commencement of the consultation to make argument, including references to any relevant case law, on two questions. First, was the applicant a temporary or permanent employee? If the applicant was a temporary employee, does she assert that she had a right to grieve the employer’s actions under the collective agreement, and if so how?
7I am not seized of this application.
“David A. McKee”
for the Board