HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-0994.Cherwonogrodzky et al.03-03-31 DecisionCrown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB# 0994/02; 0995/02; 1328/02; 2973/02
UNION# 02A737; 02A738; 02F038; 2003-0230-0001
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Cherwonogrodzky et al.) Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Finance) Employer
BEFORE Owen V. Gray Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Gavin Leeb
Barrister and Solicitor
FOR THE EMPLOYER Fateh Salim
Counsel
Management Board Secretariat
HEARING March 28, 2003.
2
[1] The parties have agreed to join a number of recent grievances with the above-styled
grievances for hearing together before me, on the basis that the decision in these
proceedings shall have “precedential value” within the meaning of Article 22.16.7 of their
collective agreement. The parties are to consult with the administrative staff of the GSB to
ascertain the GSB File number of each of the grievances to be included in these proceedings,
and provide me with a list in electronic form setting out the grievor’s name, OPSEU
grievance number and GSB file number for each such grievance.
[2] To the extent its counsel has not already done so at the hearing of March 28, 2003 or
in prior written correspondence with counsel for the employer, the union is hereby ordered
to provide the employer with particulars of the facts on which it relies in support of its
allegations in these proceedings, including, without limiting the foregoing, any particulars
not already provided in answer to paragraphs numbered 1, 3 and 7 through 11 of employer
counsel’s letter of March 14, 2003.
[3] As to the union’s allegation that the employer benefits from the grievors’ possessing a
current professional designation, any previously undisclosed particulars of the facts relied
upon in support of that allegation shall be provided as soon as possible, and in any event
prior to Thursday, April 3, 2003.
[4] As to the union’s allegation that in the application to the grievors of its policy on
reimbursement of professional dues the employer has acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory
or bad faith manner, any previously undisclosed particulars of facts relied upon in support of
that allegation shall be provided as soon as possible, and in any event prior to Thursday,
April 10, 2003.
[5] The union asked for particulars of the names and positions of individuals for whom
the Ministry and/or the Employer provides reimbursement for maintenance of the
professional designations in issue, namely CA, CMA and CGA. The response of employer
ORDER
3
counsel is that the Ministry does not provide reimbursement to anyone for the maintenance
of any of those designations, except when it was necessary for the employee to have that
designation in order to take courses the Ministry wished them to take or having the
designation was otherwise a condition of employment. The union asserts that in a document
currently available on its intranet setting out “Frequently Asked Questions” about taxable
benefits (the “Taxable Benefits FAQ”), the employer includes the following Question and
Answer:
The ministry pays my fees to belong to the Certified General Accountants Association of
Ontario. Is this a taxable benefit?
Yes. Since membership is not a condition of employment, this is a taxable benefit.
On the face of it, this appears to indicate that the fees required to maintain membership in
at least one of the designations in issue are being reimbursed or have in the recent past been
reimbursed by a ministry or ministries for employees for whom such membership is not or
was not a condition of employment, in numbers sufficient for this question to have been
“frequently asked” by such employees.
[6] At the hearing of March 28, 2003 in this matter, the union has asked that the
employer (i.e., the Crown in Right of Ontario) be directed to produce all documents in its
possession evidencing the posing of questions that led to the aforementioned entry in the
Taxable Benefits FAQ (including, to the extent that the questions posed reveal them, the
names, ministries and circumstances of the questioners). I so directed orally at that hearing.
In view of the lateness of the union’s request, however, I noted that this direction required
only that the employer make reasonable efforts to locate and produce the subject documents.
I hereby confirm that direction and observation. If those documents are not provided prior to
the close of the union’s case, the lateness of the union’s request and the reasonableness of
the employer’s efforts up to that point to locate the documents will be factors to be
considered if the union requests and the employer opposes an adjournment of the hearing
pending production of those documents.
4
[7] The deadlines specified in this order may be varied by written agreement of the union
and employer. A party who fails to produce a document or to provide particulars of an
allegation in accordance with this order may be precluded from introducing that document
or presenting evidence about that allegation in these proceedings.
Dated at Toronto this 31st
day of March, 2003.
Vice Chair