Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-0002.Union.89-12-06c T ONT*RIO EMPLOY.iSDE!.~ CO”RONNE CROWNEMPLOYEES DE L’ONTMVO GRIEVANCE CQMMISSION DE, SETTLEMENT‘ REGLEMENT BOFjRD DES GRIEFS . IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under TEE CROWN EMPLOYEES.COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before TEE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between:~ OPSEU (Union, Local 509) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology) Emp Before: ". B.B. Fisher I. Freedman D. Walkinshaw loyer For the Grievor: A. Ryder Counsel Ryder, Whitaker Barristers & So Vice-Chairperson Member Member Wright and Chapman icitors For the Employer: C. Riqgs Counsel Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie Barristers & Solicitors Hearings: October.14, 1988 October 6. 1989 : DECISION This is a grievance brought by the Union alleging a violation of Article 4 of the Collective Agreement in that the employer failed to post for three vacancies in the Special Financial Services Branch of the Ontario Development Corporation. At the opening of the case the Union advised the Board that they had issued a Summons to Witness to Mr. Robert Winter, the Director of Special Services Branch requesting him to produce at the hearing the following documents: 1. All contract documents respecting the engagement or employment of Ronald Landis, Harold Coagn, Jim Wiley and.Jack Shirley issued since the beginning of 1986. 2. Organization charts (position inventory survey) of the Ontario D&elopment Corporation.as of February 15, 1988. 3. All correspondence, memoranda, reports, recommendations, decisions and documents of any kind respecting each.periodical review made for each former idea Corporation investment administered by the special services branch since July 1,1986 including memoranda or reports respectmg the policy of the Government of Ontario to each investment administered by the branch. 4. Excerpts from the Manual of Administration and Ministry Guidelines respecting the letting of fee for services contracts. Items numbered 1,2 and 4 were not objected to by the employer. The Union indicated that this case will involve a detailed examination of what work has been performed by the incumbents since 1986. These gentlemen were hired by the employer on contract and performed the job function which the Union claims is ;I bargaining unit position and therefore should have been posted. ! ! ’ i- -2- . According to the employer, the work performed by the incumbents involved the hands on responsibility of actually running companies which had previously been under the umbrella of the now defunct IDEA corporation. There were approximately 35 companies operated by the incumbents. The files on all 35 companies fills over 200 boxes of documents. It was agreed by the parties that they would dispense with the necessity of having the Union call Mr. Winter to the stand, establish that he was in control of the subject documents and then ask him to produce them. Instead, the Board would address the issue in a preliminary fashion, but assuming that Mr. Winter had been so called. The employer objected to paragraph 3 of the subpoena primarily on the .grounds of lack of particularity and that it was a “fishing expedition”. First of all, with respect to particularity, it was suggested that the Union should be required to provide the following particulars:. 1. Name of company file; 2. Type of transaction; 3. Nature of work performed. Interesting enough, one of the reasons the employer opposed the summons was because of confidentiality of the subject matter. It seems odd, therefore, that the Union should be required to provide particulars with respect to the names of companies and types of transactions when the Ministry admits that information itself is confidential, in other words, it would seem that the Union itself could not, through reasonable diligence. come up with this-information as the Ministry itself keeps it confidential. It is illogical to require a party to provide particulars of transactions when the nature of those transaction are kept intentionally confidential by the party upon who the request is being made. -3 Therefore, in the circumstances of this case, the summons does not require greater particularity. It is true to some extent that the request for the company files is a “fishing expedition” in that the Union does not know what they will find in the.company files, however, it is not truly a “fishing expedition” in the sense that the purpose behind the request is not to find out information about these companies, but to determine what work the incumbents do and how long the projects are. There would be no other effective way of obtaining this information, which is clearly relevant to the merits of the case. Therefore, the summons is upheld to the degree that Mr. Winter will be ordered to produce all the relevant files pertaining to the 35 odd companies being run by the branch if and only if those companies were worked on by the incumbents. Inother words, if none of the.incumbents worked on a specific company file, then the information need not be produced as that file would not shed any light on whether or not the work performed by the incumbents was bargaining unit work. The.Union is to treat this information as strictly confidential and of course, is bound by the usual implied undertaking not to use the information contained therein for any purpose other than this grievance nor to make their contents public or to communicate the contents to any third party. This order was made orally by the Board at the hearing and subsequently the employer announced that due to their concern regarding confidentiality they were prepared to agree to post the requisite vacancies. The parties therefore agreed to the following order: 1. 2. The Ministry will post two vacancies in the Investment Management Branch of the Ontario Development Corporation in accordance with the Collective Agreement: The Board will remained seized of any remedial issues arising from this decision including the date as of which any compensation runs. Dated this 6th day of December , 1989. r- % Y I Barry n. rtsner, vice Lhairperson