HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-3159.Breen et al.92-04-02 Decision ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO
GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT - REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO, M5G 1Z8 TELEPHONEiTELEPHONE (416; 326-1388
180, RUE OUNOAS QUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO). M5G 1Z8 FACSIPAILE%TELECOPIE (416) 326-1396
3159/90
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Breen et al) -
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of the Attorney. General).
Employer
BED: W. Kaplan Vice-Chairperson
I. Thomson Member
F. Collict Member
FOR THE M. Hart
GRIEVOR Counsel
Cavalluzzo, Hayes & Shilton
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE M. Failes
EMPLOYER Counsel
Winkler, Filion & Wakely
Barristers & Solicitors
HEARING June 5, 1991
October 22, 1991
March 23, 30 1992
2 v ..
Introduction
This matter, involving a number of grievances alleging various violations of
the rest periods and health and safety provisions of the Collective
Agreement, first proceeded to hearing in Kingston on June 5, 1991 . Following
that hearing, a Memorandum of Settlement was reached in relation to the
rest periods part of the grievances. On October 22, 1991 , the Board
reconvened in Kingston at which time certain preliminary matters relating to
the outstanding issues in dispute were addressed. At the request of the
parties, the Board issued an order dealing with the filing by the union of a
statement of particulars outlining details of alleged harassment said to
constitute a breach of the health and safety provisions of the Collective -
Agreement. These particulars were provided to the employer and to the
Board, and the hearing reconvened in Kingston on March 23, 1992. At that
time a number of procedural matters were brought before the Board. All of
these matters were resolved with the exception of the employer's request
that the hearing be closed to members of the public, and that a certain report
ordered filed as an exhibit be similarly restricted to the parties. Legal
argument on this issue was heard in Toronto on March 30, 1992. With the
agreement of the parties, and given the fact that this hearing is scheduled to
proceed on April 6, 1992, it was decided that the Board would issue a brief
decision on the employer's request with written reasons to follow. The
following is our decision:
The Employer has requested a"publication ban" on
evidence given in this matter, and has also requested
that the circulation of Exhibit 3, being the "Report on the
Allegations Leading to the Suspension of Maureen Evans,
Local Registrar for the County of Frontenac, Pursuant to
S. 22(1) of the Public Service Act" be restricted to the
parties in this proceeding. Having carefully considered
the employer's request, and for written reasons to
3
follow, both requests are denied. While the Board does
possess the jurisdiction, in an appropriate case, to
accede to both requests, we are not satisfied that this is
such a case. We are, however, satisified that this is an
appropriate case in which to order the deletion of all
personal information from Exhibit 3 including names and
position titles prior to its release to persons other than
the parties. Anion counsel undertook responsibility for
doing this at the hearing on March 30, 1992 and it is so
ordered.
DATED at Ottawa this 2n&Day of April 1992.
illiam Kaplan
Vice-Chairperson
I. Thomson
Member
F. Collict -
Member