PSGB#P-2015-1406, P-2015-1407

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT OF ONTARIO

Before

THE PUBLIC SERVICE GRIEVANCE BOARD

BETWEEN

Jim Allen

Complainant

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Marilyn A. Nairn

Vice-Chair

FOR THE COMPLAINANT

Jim Allen

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Susan Munn Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

August 7, August 27, 2015

Decision

1This interim decision deals with the issue of the location of the mediation scheduled for April 11, 2016. The complainant requested that the matter be scheduled in London. The employer asked that it be heard in Toronto at the Board’s offices.

2By e-mail dated August 5, 2015 a Board clerk advised the parties, “these matters are scheduled for April 11, 2016 in London and the Notice of Proceeding will follow shortly”. That e-mail was sent without regard to the Board’s Rules and Practices and pursuant to a request by the complainant. The employer immediately responded requesting that the matter be heard in Toronto in accordance with Board practice. The matter was then placed before the Board for determination.

3The complainant was given an opportunity to respond to the employer’s position. In his response the complainant took the position that the Board had fulfilled its responsibility to select a time and place for the mediation in accordance with section 5(1) of the Rules and Practices of the Board. In response to the employer’s reliance on Practice Note #3, the complainant asserted that it is unfair and inequitable for the employer to insist that the mediation be held in Toronto when employer representatives are reimbursed travel expenses and time and he is not reimbursed for those same expenses for attending.

4The PSGB’s Practice Note #3 provides:

Location of Mediation/Hearing

In order to reduce its own travel expenses and hearing costs, the Public Service Grievance Board as a general rule will schedule mediations/hearings at its offices at 180 Dundas Street West, Toronto, Ontario, unless scheduling at this location results in unreasonable expense and inconvenience for either party.

5The complainant is situated in the London area. There is no indication of any circumstance to suggest that attendance in Toronto for a day of mediation engenders either unreasonable expense or inconvenience to the complainant. The fact that the employer may reimburse its representatives for their attendance is irrelevant. The matter is being brought by the complainant. He cannot expect the employer to fund a complaint brought against it. That employer representatives attend to address the complaint is a function of their work responsibilities and the employer no doubt has policies in place to deal with expenses incurred and time spent performing that work.

6There is no basis for departing from the Board’s Practice Note. This matter will be scheduled to proceed at the Board’s offices in Toronto and is hereby referred to the Registrar for the purpose of issuing a Notice of Proceeding in accordance with this direction.