|
|
|
CUPW 2011
Links to CPC Householder Values and Walks by
FSA
|
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
HEARINGS HELD AT TORONTO, ONTARIO, ON JULY 7 AND 13, 1993
BETWEEN:
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Corporation
- and -
CANADIAN UNION OF POSTAL WORKERS
Union
AND IN THE MATTER OF A SERIES OF GRIEVANCES UNDER THE REGULAR ARBITRATION PROCEDURE
ARBITRATOR
P. JOHN BRUNNER
APPEARANCES
FOR THE CORPORATION PAUL MULVIHILL, ROBERT GORDICA
FOR THE UNION JOE LESPERANCE LEON BOUVIER
AWARD
Pursuant to Article 9.32(5) of the collective agreement, I conducted hearings at the City of Toronto, Ontario, on July 7 and 13, 1993, in order to hear and determine a series of grievances under the regular arbitration procedure.
At the conclusion of the argument on each grievance, I delivered oral reasons, giving a brief resume as required by Article 9.32(5)(r) of the collective agreement. I now hereby confirm my conclusions.
1. In the Matter of the Grievance of S. Marshall - #602-92-01076
This is a grievance brought by Sandra Marshall, a full-time indeterminate letter carrier employed by Canada Post Corporation and assigned to the Willowdale Depot No. 2.
The evidence indicates that she was given a notice of trial to appear in the Ontario Court (Provincial Division) on December 7, 1992 at 10:30 a.m. for the purposes of answering a charge against her that she violated a City of North York by-law by parking her personal vehicle in a fire route. It is conceded that the employee attended before a Justice of the Court on December 7, 1992 but there is no evidence before me whether or not she gave evidence in the proceedings. Article 27.03(b) prescribes that leave of absence with pay is to be granted to every employee who attends as a witness by subpoena or summons or by providing satisfactory proof of having attended as a witness at a proceeding held before a Court or Justice. It is clear that the employee in question was not required to attend as a witness by subpoena or summons. She was the accused and she was given notice of trial but there is no evidence as to whether
- 3 -
even as an accused she may have attended and given evidence as a witness in the proceedings. In the circumstances, the order I propose to make is this: if the Union can provide a statement in writing from the employee that she attended in Court on the day in question and gave evidence, then she was entitled to leave under Article 27.03(b). On the other hand, if she did not given evidence or no proof thereof is given by way of a statement from the employee, the grievance must be dismissed.
DATED AT TORONTO this 13, day of July, 1993.
P. JOHN BRUNNER, ARBITRATOR
|
