Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-0491.Samaroo.99-06-16,¥ ,ONTARtb ,CROWNEMPLOYEES ,--.,GRIEVANCE"1111 sEnt.EMENT, BOARD~ EMPW'YESDELliCOURONNE DEL'ONTARIO COMMISSIONDE REGLEMENT DESGRIEFS --------------,------,-~-.",..-~--I feO'DUNDASSTREETWEST,SUITE600,TORONTOONM5GtZ8 tBO,RUEDUNDASOUEST,BUREAU600,TORONTO(ON)M5GtZ8 T£LEPHONE/TELEPHON£:(416)326-'1388 FACSIMILE/TELECOPIE:(416)326-1396 GSB#0491/94 OPSEU'#98B842 INTHKMATTEROFANARBITRATION Under THECROWNEMPLOYEESCOLLECTIVEBARGAININGACT Before THEGRIEVANCESETTLEMENTBOARD' 'BETWEEN' OntarioPublicServiceEmployeesUnion (Simaroo) Grievor -and- TheCrowninRightofOntario (MinistryoftheSolicitorGeneralandCorrectionalServices) Employer BEFORE FORTHE GRIEVOR' OwenV.Gray CraigFlood, Counsel, KoskieMinsky Barristers&Solicitors ViceChair' FORTHE ,EMPLOYER HEARING DavidStrang Counsel,LegalServicesBranch ManagementBoardSecretariat June3,1~99 I···· ·DECISION ,'. [1]The unionasksthatI ordertheemployertoprovidecertaindocumenta- tionandinformationandprovideforaninspe~tion,allasdescribedinaletter datedJune1,1999,fromunioncounseltoemployercourlsel.Thedocumentation andinformationrequestedareasfollows: 1..thestafflogand(inyotherdocumentationwhichwouldconfirmtheiden- tityoftheofficerwhoallegedlyescortedMs.Maineto"Seg"onOctober5, 1993andlortheidentity.oftheescortingofficerwhocametoeseortMs. Marnebackfrom"Seg"tothemeetingwithamemberofmanagement; 2.anyandalldocumentsconfIrmingtheidentityoftheattendingclassifica- tionofficeron'themorningofOctober6,1993,togetherwithanyother personpresentintheclassificationofficeonOctober6,1993,andanyand allstatementstakenfromorprovidedbyanysuchpersonswithrespect totheirknowledgeofthecircumstancesrelatmgtot4eaccusationbyMs; Maineagainst'theG~ievor; 3.anyandallstatementstakenfromMs.TracyArmstr.ong,togetherwith anyiriformationregardingthetrainingandinstructioninreporttakingof persons-takingthisreport; .4..anyandalldocumentsindicatmgtheidentityaridlocation-oftheGrievor. andMs.Armstrongat9:30a.m.;10:30-11:00a.m.,and3:00p.m.onOcto- ber17,1993;anyandalldocumentationregardingthewhereaboutsof thisdocumentation~md.anydiscussions betweenanyrepresentativeof theinsti~titionand Ms.ArmstrongatanypointsubsequenttoOctober17, 1993;. 5.anyandalldocumentsindicatingtheidentityofthevisitor(s)withwhom ,Ms.ArmstrongmetwithonOctober17,1993; 6.anyan.dalldocumentationindicatingtheidentityofvisitorstotheinsti- tutiononOctober22,1993andthetimeoftheirvisitingtheinmatesand theunitincludingbutnotlimitedtoMs.ChristineNoble,Ms.Annette QuibbellandMs.PatriciaMitchellincludinglogbooks,anyandalldocu- mentsregardinginmaterequestsandanyandalldocumentsconcerning inmateOavidRoiJinson;. ,.-.-.'.,'''-;'l -2- 7.thejobcompetitionfIle inwhichtheGrievorobtainedapermanentstaff .positionattheWhitbyJail; ·8...thelastknownaddressesandtelephonenumbersofalloftheoriginal complainantsinthismatter,togetherwithDavidRobinson,MaryLou CaseyandChristineNoble. The~nion alsoasksthatImakeanofderprovidingforaninspectiondescribed asfollows: TheUnionandthe'Grievoralsorequestanopportunitytoattendattheinsti-. tutionandinspectthefemaleunit,segregationunit,adjoiningdoorwaysand thehallwayleadingtoandfromtheclassificationofficetogetherwithproduc- tionofanyandallphotographs,floorplansandschematic.diagram's:ofthose locations,togetherwiththeareabetweenthe'femaleunitandthepencil sharpenerreferredtoby'Ms.LisaWatsontogetherwithcolouredphoto- graphs,scalediagramsand/ors'chematicdiagramsofthisarea. Asdiscussed,itwouldbeourrequestthattheGrievorbeallowedtobeinat- tendanceduringthecourseofthisinspection·inorder·toproperlyprovidein- structionstocounsel.'' Aswell,werequesttheopportunitytoprepareboth·videotapeandphoto- ,graphsoftheareas;andtomakesuchmeasurementsasmayberequired.We ofcoursearewillingtoagreetoreasonableconditionsregardingthedateand timeofsuchinspectionandthepreservationofconfidentialityofanyandall informationobtainedasaresultoftheinspection. I- [2]Employercounselobjectsgenerally,onthegroundthatthese'r:equestsare madetoolateintheseproceedings.Unioncounselobservesthatmostofthere- questsinhisletterofJune1,,1999weresetoutintheparticularshedelivered October23,1998,thattheyallrelatetotheunion'srebuttalonthemeritsofthe. ··,0·-~••.p•••'evidentiaryeffectofthegrievor'scriminal·convictions;.andthat·until·the~release. ofmydecisionofMay25,1999itwasinissuewhethertheunionwouldbeper- .'.- mittedtopresentevidenceinrebuttaLofthepropositionthatthegrievorwasin. factguiltyofthecrimesofwhichhewasconvicted. [3]Thenatureandhistoryoftheseproceedingsisdescribedinprevious,deci- sions.Fromtheoutset,theemployercausedtheproceedingstofocusonwhether theunionwouldbepermittedtoassertandattempttoprovethatthegrievorwas innocentofthe.allegedmisconductforwhichhewasdismissed.Betweenthefirst andsecondhearingdays(December18,1996andFebruary18,1998),theunion retainedcounselandrequestedcertainproductions.Onthesecondhearingdate, \,. ,-.·t'- -3- ......... 'theemployer'sthencounselnotedthatsomeoftheissuesto'whichthe~Jiion's ,:.'..'.". '"productionrequestsweredirectedwouldbeacademicifIconcluded,asshewas' then.asserting,thatthegrievor'sconvictionsin1995wereconclusive,irreb~table evidenceofthemisconductforwhich.hehadbeendIsmissedin1994.Sheasked .thafconsiderationofproductionrequestsofthatsort98 deferreduntilafter'the' employer'spreliminaryissueshadbeen·addressed.Thehearingproceededin. ,. ·thatwaybothbeforl?andafterthedelivery"of.unioncounsel!:sletterofOctober ...23,.,;1998,'which'setoutmostoftherequestsnowbeingaddressed..J.do-not.sug-." gest:thattheunion'sproductionrequestsin1997coveredthesamegroundas thosenowbeforeme.Nevertheless;theconductoftheemployef's·prior.counselin theseproceedingscreatedacontextinwhichthedelayingettingtotheseissues isnotsomethingtowhichIampreparedtoassignanysignificance. ProductionofDocuments .-...' [4]BothcounSel.niadereferencetovariousauthoritiesonthescopeofproduc- .-. tionanddisclosureinvariouslegal~contexts.I donotproposetoreview'those here.TheBoardisthemasterofitsprocedure,andithasthes~mepowers asan arbitrator~nc:lerthe LabourRelationsAct,1995,("theLRA")torequirethatpar- tiesproducearguablyrelevantdocumentsathearingortotheoppositeparty priortohearing.In,ReThermalCeramics,DivisionO{MorganiteCanadaCorp. andUni.tedSi'eelworkers(1993),32L.A.C.(4th)375ImadethefollOWIngobser-','.. vations(atpages379-380and382-383)abouttheexerciseofthepowersnowcon- "ferredbyclauses'(a)and(b)ofsubsect!Qn48(12)oftheLRA: ThesubsectionconfersorconfIrmspowers,butdoesnotdictatehowthose powersaretobeexercised.TheirexerciseshouldbeguidedbytheeVIdentin-. tentoftheActthatthearbitrationofdisputesundercollectiveagreemen.tsbe asexpeditiousameansofresolvingthosedisputesasitcanbewithoutbeing anunfairone.Thepartiestoproceedingsincivilcourtshavetherighttopar- ticularizedpleadings,productionofdocumentsandpre-trialdiscoveryofop- positeparties.Muchattentionisfocusedonthescopeoftheparties'corre· spondingobligationsinthatregard.Muchargumentishadoverwhether thoseobligationshavebeenmet.Andahearingonthemeritsoftheparties' disputedoesnotproceedinthatforumuntilthoseobligationsandanydis- putesaboutthemhavebeenmetandresolved.Intheresult,theaverage pieceofcivillitigationproceedsataratherslowerpacethancanbeandgen- erallyisachievedinthearbitrationofcollectiveagreementdisputes.No -'." ;; :':'.. .'..~.~',~ .:,("!• -4- doubtthathassomethingtodowithwhythelegislaturechosenottoburden thegrievance'arbitrationprocesswithmandatorypre;hearingproceedingsof thesortavailablebyrightinciyillitigation. Thelegislaturehasleftittothearbitratorchargedwithdecidingacollec- tive.agreementdisputetojudgewhetherandtowhatextentthereshould.be. .anycompelledpre-hearingexchangeofinformation.Inmyview,one:ofthe. considerationstobetakenintoaccountinmakingthatjudgmentisthepossi- bilitythatanorderintendedtoexpeditethehearinganddisposition'ofthe '.mattermayhavetheoppositeeffect.'Oncethereis'an·ordercompelling.a partytodosomethingithasnotagreedto'do,thereisthen.thepossibilityof .disputesaboutwhattheordermeans,howit.appliestounanticipatedcircum- stances,whetherithasbeencompliedwith'andwhattheconsequencesof non-complianceshouldbe:Theresolutionofsuchdisputesmayconsume·the veryhearing.timeandexpensewhichtheorderwasintendedtosave,and more,withoutadvancingtheresolutionoftheunderlying·disputeevenas' .muchasitwouldhavebeenhadnoorderbeenmade.Thatwilln.otalwaysbe so,butitisariskwhichmustbeweighedagainstthepossiblebenefitsofa morestructuredandonerouspre·hearingdisclosure.process. Myreluctancetoimposeaformofdiscoverywhichrequiresthecreation ofdocumentssummarizinganticipatedtestimonydoesnotextendtocompel- lingpre-hearingdisclosureofexistingdocumentswhicharearguablyrele- vantand,thus,liabletobeproducedatheaririginanyevent.Thereismuch... tobegainedandlittletobelostbyrequiringpartiestoexchangeina4vance the.documentswhichtheyintendtointroduceatthehearing.Therequest heregoesbeyonddoeumentsonwhichtheunionandgrievorml'iyrelytoall documentsintheirpossessionrelatingtothegrievor'sjobsearch,whether theyintendtorelyonthemornot.Iamsatisfiedthatsuchdocumentsarear- guablyrelevant.Theycouldbethesubjectofasummonsducestecum.Ifa partyhasarguablyrelevantdocumentsinitspossessionwhichitcouldbe compelledbyasummonstobringtothehearing,itseemstomethatthebur- denshouldbeonthatpartytoshowwhyitshouldnotproducethosedocu- mentsinadvanceifthe oppositepartysorequests.Theunionhas'notsatis- fiedthatburdenhere... Sinceresistancetoproductionofdocumentsinadvanceofahearingmay sometimesstemfromconcernabouttheusetowhichdocumentsproduced mightbeputonce.produced,Ishouldsaythatinmyviewapartytowhom documentsareproducedinconnectionwiththearbitrationofagrievanceis subjecttoanimpliedundertakingnottousethedocumentsforanypurpose otherthantheconductoftheproceedinginwhichthedocumentswerepro- duced:Harmanv.SecretaryofStateforHomeDepartm.ent,[1983]1AC.280 (H.L.);U.S.w.A.v.Shaw;AlmexIndustriesLtd.,[1984]O.L.R.B.Rep.Apr. 659;P.5.A.G.v.ForintekCanadaCorp.,[1985]O.L.R.B.Rep.July1050;Lac MineralsLtd.iJ.NewCinchUraliiumLtd.(1985),17D.L.R.(4th)745;50. O.R.(2d)260,48C.P.C.199(Ont.H.C.J.)[leavetoappealgranted2C.P.C. (2d)76]. [5]It wasapparentlyarguedbeforeanotherarbitratorinBeChildren'sAid and C.a.p.E.2197(1994),42L.A.C.(4th)259(Briggs)thatmydecisioninRe. ThermalCeramics,supra,standsforthepropositionthatanorderforproduction ''!', .-5-. shouldbelimitedtodocum'eritso~whichtheproducingpartyintend~torelyat ......'-.- hearing.It doesnot.Indeed,theresultinBeThermalCeramics,supra,.wasan .orderforproductionthatwas,I}.()tlimitedinthat·w~y.Itseemed.tometogo '...without-sayingthatapartycouldordinarily'havenosensibl~:objectionto pro- ,.'ducinginadvancethosedocumentsonw~ichitmaywishtorely.athearing.·The party.:could·hardlyobjectonthe.basisofrelevance,thepossibility,:thatdocu- '".,;,mentsnotproducedwillnotlaterbeadmittedencouragescompliance,'andthe extentofcOPlplianceiseasily..assessed,as,thehearing,proceeds:Because.the ,. ":."samecannotbesaidforotherdocumentsintheparty'spossession,custodyor power,thearbitratorhasthoseandotherconsiderationstoweighinassessing whethertorequiretheirproduction.Ifthedocumentsarearguablyrelevantto anissue-intheproce~di~g,however,thentheonusshouldbeonthepartycapa- ble.ofproducingittodemonstratewhyitshouldnotberequiredtodoso. [6]'Exceptasindicatedinthebalanceofthisaward,Thaveaccepttheunion's subniissionthatthedocumentssoughtarearguablyrelevanttoissuesinthis. proceeding,and.havenotbeenpersuadedthatthereisanyvalidreasonwhythe emplo~ershould notberequiredtoproducethem.WhereIhavedirectedthatthe ,. employerproducedocuments,theemployermaydpsoeither'byproducingthe originalsforinspectionbyunioncounselatareasonabletimeand.place,orby ..'.-. providingphotocopies()ftheoriginals,orbysomecombinationofthetwo.Ifit ...-..-....--.....•.-.-.....---'_.-.----._..._..'."...~. producesoriginalsforinspection,theemployershallprovidetheunionwithpho- tocopiesofany·pagesrequestedbyunioncounsel,andunioncounselshallpay anyreasonablephotocopyingchargesdemanded.Nothinginthesegeneraldirec- tionsprecludesthepartiesfromdealingwithproductioninanyothermanneron .whichtheycanagree. .WitnessStatements [7]Theunionwishestobesureithashadproductionofallwitnessstate- mentsconcerningmattersrelevanttotheissuesremainingindispute.Theem- ployerdoesnotclaimthatanysuchdocumentswouldbeprivilegedfromdisclo- sure.Employercounselsaysthatno-oneintheinstitutionwherethealleged '1 -6. misconducttookplacehasafileofwitnessstatements.Heassumesthatthe ..... st~tements takenbytheI.I.V.investigatorareallinhisreport,whichhasbeen .produced.Hestatesthatthegr~evor'scriminal counselwouldhavehadproduc-. tioninthe.criminalproceedingofstatementsobtainedbythepoliceorCrown .counsel.It'isapparentthattheabilityofthegrievor·todefendhimselfat.the criminal.trialwillbepartoftheemployer'sargumentinsupportofthe.eviden- tiaryvalueoftheconvictionsinthoseproceedings,andinanswerto.anyrebuttal. the'.unionmaynowpresent.on_thegrievor'sbehalf.Vnioncounsel:advisesthat .·thegrievor'scriminalcounselfeelsconstrainedfromdiscussingthesematt~rsby ...anundertaking,expressorimplied,thathenotmakeuseofor-revealanything disclosedtohimbytheCrowninthoseproceedingsexceptforpurposesofthose ..J. proceedings. [8]Employercounselwasnotinapositiontosaythattheemployerdoesnot haveinitspossession,custod¥orpoweranyrelevantwitnessstatementsnotal- readyprodu~edto unioncounsel.Idirectthatittakeappropriatestepstodeter- mine wheth~r'itdoes haveanysuchstatementsinitspossession,custodyor power,andproducE?~nysuch statementstounioncounsel. [9]Theemployerher;eistheCrowninRightofOntario.AsInotedinmyde-. cisionofSeptember15,1998,theemployer'spreviouscounseltookinconsistent positions.about.whetherornotthe.employeristhesamelegalentityasthe prosecutingpartyinthegrievor'scrimin?-ltrial.Whatevertheemployer'sposi- tiononthatquestionmaynow·be,Idirectthatitdowhatitcantohavethe grievor'sprior.criminalcounselreleas-edfromanyexpressori~pliedundertak- ingtotheprosecutionthatmaypreventhimfrom'disclosingtounioncounsel anythingdisclosedtohimbytheprosecutioninthecourseoforinrespectofthe \ grievor'scriminaltrial. RecordsofDiscussions [10]Inparagraphnumbered4oritsrequesttheUnionasksforproductionof "anyandalldocufl.lentationregarding...anydiscussionsbetweenanyrepresen- tativeoftheinstitutionandMs.ArmstrongatanypoiIitsubsequenttoOctober· -7-. 17,·1993:"Suchdocumentswouldincludenotesofwhat~assaidto theinmateas wellas what,was,saidbyher,andmightforthatreasonnotbethought-tobe .."witnessstatements."Iflimitedtodocum~ntsregarding communicati~nswith .theinmateconcerningorarisingoutofherallegationthatthegrievor.assaulted ·her;-thenthisisalegitimaterequest.Withthatlimitation,theemployerisdi- rectedtoproduceanysuchdocumentsinitspossession,custodyorpower. ·Recor,dsofTr~iningofStatement Takers [11],Atthispointthisrequestistoovague:Iamtoldthatwitnessstatements thusfarproducedshowonthemwhotookthestatement.Onceitisclearthatall statementshavebeenproduced,theunioncandeterminewhose,report-takingis.' in,issue"ifany,andparticularizeitsrequest.Iwouldexpectittoattempttoin- ·tervieweachsuchreport-takerabouthisorhertrainingbeforerenewingare- .,questforrecordsconcerningthattraining. The,Competition·File [12]InhisletterofOctober23,1998,unioncounselsaidthattheunionrelied' onthecompetitionfileinrespectofthecompetitioninwhichhewasawardeda permanentpositionattheWhitbyJail.InhisletterofJune1,1999he'ask.-ed ,thatthe,employerproducethefile.Atthehearing,employercounselsaidhe thoughtthefilemighthavebeenproducedtotheunion-inc'onnectiongrievances ,thatchallengedtheoutcomeofthatcompetition.Uni0I?-counselsaidhebelieved thattheunionmayhavecopiesofthefilebutcouldnotproduceittohimbecause theyweresubject,toariexpressorimpliedundertakingnottomakeuseofthem foranypurposeunconnectedwiththecompetitiongrievances.Althoughthe,ar- guable:relevancemayhetenuous,i~wouldbenoburdenontheemployertore- quire th~tit releasetheuniorifromanysuchundertakingtotheextentneces- sarytopermitunioncounseltomakeuseofthecompetitionfileforpurposesof thisproceeding.Idirectthatitdoso. -8- Logsando,therrecordsofevel~.tsand attendance .' [~3]Employercounsels~ysthe employerstillhasthestafflogsforthesegand' women'sunitsoftheinstitutionfortherelevantperiod.Hestatesthattheyare' theonlydocumentslikelytoprovidetheinformationsoughtinparagraphnum- ,berea.1oftheunion'srequest.Thelogsmayalso'addresstheissuesidentifiedin ,paragraphsnumbered2and3.Questionsaboutstaffinattendanceintheinsti- tutionatparticulartimesmightbeaddressedbyattendancerecords,iftheystill ., ,exist.Questionsaboutwhovisitedtheinmatesinquestionafterthealleged'as- saultsmightbeaddressedbyvisitorlogs,iftheystillexist.Withrespecttopara- graph4oftheunion'srequest,counselfortheemployerindicatesthatnorecords ,arekeptwithrespecttoaccesstorecords.Theemployerisdirectedtoproduce ,thestafflogs,andanyvisitorlogsandattendancerecordsstillinexistence,for therelevanttimesandareas; DocumentsRegardingInmateRequests DocumentsConcerningInmateDavidRobinson i [14].Theserequestsrelatetothegrievor'sallegationthatinmateWatsonhada m.otivetoharmhimbecausehehadrefusedherrequesttodeliveralettertoher boyfriend,DavidRobinson,whowasincarceratedelsewhereintheinstitution, andbecausehehadplacedRobinsononmisconduct.Thesortofinmaterequest withwhichtheunionisconcernedisarequestbyWatsonthatshebeallowedto seeRobinsonorthataletterbedeliveredtohim.Theemployer'spositionisthat inm~t~smay communicatewithoneanotherbyordinarymail,.qutlettersfrom oneinmatetoanotherarenotdeliveredbycorrectionalofficers.Ifsuch arequest ...'. weredocumented,itisnotclearwherethedocumentwouldbeifnotinthe'in- mate's.,fileor,perhaps,oneofthelogsIhavealreadyorderedproduced.!heem- ployerisdirectedtoreviewLisaWatson'sinmatefilefortherelevant'periodof incarceration,ifitstillexists,andproduceanydocumentrelatingtoarequestby hertosee,ortohavealetterdeliveredto,inmateRobinson,duringtheperiod priortoMs.Watson'sallegationthatthegrievorassaultedher. '..9~ [15]"TherequestwithrespecttoiruriateDavidRobinsonistoobroad.Theem- ,', ployerisdirectedtoreviewDayidRobinson'sinmatefileforthereleva~tperiod., ofincarceration,ifitstillexists,andproduceanydoclIment.r~iatingto the grievor'shavingplacedhimonmisconductduringtheperiodpriortoMs.Wat- ,sonsallegationthatthegrievorassaultedl).er. ·LastKnownAddressesofComplainantsandOtherWitnesses' [16],Therequestinparagraphnumbered8ofunioncounsel'sletterofJune1, 1999isnotoneoftherequestsmade'intheletterofOctober23,1998:Thead· dressesandtelephonenumbersofthecomplainantsandthewitnessesnamed arenotfactsrelevanttoanyissuebetweenthepartiesintheseproceedings.I amnotpersuadedthattheemployershouldbedirectedtoproduceanyinforma·· tionitmayhaveabouttheircurrentwhereabouts.Thatisnottosaythatthe.. employer'srefusaltovolunteertheinformationwhenaskedisinconsequential.If. theunioncannotfindoneofthesepeoplewithoutinformationthee~pl~yer withholds,forexample,thentheemployermay.notbeinapositiontoarguethat anadverseinference'shouldbe,drawn:fromtheunion'sfailuretocallthem. TheInspection ",[17]Unioncounsel'sletter.ofOctober23,1998askedfortheopportunityto view--relevant..portions,ofthe..premises.,and·productionofdrawings.,It·didnot,· ask,astheletterofJune1,1999does,thatthegrievorbeallowedtobe.present ·.~...'.. ,fortheinspection.Apartfromthe,complaintaboutdel~ywithwhichIhaveal- ·readydealt,employercounseldoesnotseriouslyobjecttoaninspectionofrele- vantportionsofthepremis'esbyunioncounsel.Hedoesnotobjecttothetaking ofphotographs'orvideotapesduringtheinspection,providedthattheprivacyof' inmatesandotherspresentisrespected.Counseltakesstrongobjectiontoal· lowingthegrievortoreturn,howeverbriefly,totheworkplacefromwhichhe wasdismissedandthesceneofcrimesagainstinmatesofwhichhewascon·' victed.Counselalsoindicatesthatthereexistscaleconstructiondrawings .-10- showingthe:structureasofJ988,.whichfortheniostparr·correctlyreflectthe layoutoftherelevaritareasatthetimeoftheeventsIJ;lquestion... .1",.. [18]I clearlyhavethepowertopermitwhattheunionasksifitispartofthe tak~r:gof aviewunderclause(g)ofsubsection48(12)oftheLRA.Thatwouldin- volve.mybeingin'attendance.Itcouldbedebatedwhetheraninspectionofthis sortintheabsenceof.thearbitratorfallswithinclause(h)ofthatsubsection. Employercounselsensiblydidriotinsistonmybeingpresentasaconditionof .the.inspection,orotherwisearguethatIwaswithoutjurisdictionto.makeanor- derprovidingforwhatunioncounselasked.Inallthecircumstances,I·consid" eredandconsiderthatanorderprovidingforinspectionbyunioncounseland perhapsanotherrepresentativeoftheunion(otherthanthegrievor)wouldbe appropriate.Isoinformedthepartiesatthehearing.1observedthattheneces- .sityofthegrievor'sattendancehadnotbeenmadeout,andlikelycouldnotbe madeoutuntilcounselhaddonetheinspection,takenphotographs,reviewedthe plansandcouldexplainwithreferencetothosethingswhyitwasthatthe ... grievorwouldhavetobepresentinorderforcounseltoproperlyprepareforfur- .. therhearings.I understandthatafterthehearingconcluded,·thepartiesar- rangedforaninspectionthatwillhavetakenplacebythetimethisdecisionis releasedtothem. ___._..H9.].'_i.Ratherthangivedetaileddirectionsthatmayconflictwithwhat.the-par-. tieshaveworked-out,Isimplydirectthattheemployerproducetheconstruction '. drawingstounioncounsel,andpermithimandanyassIstant(otherthanthe grievor)thathemayreasonablyrequIretoattendattheinstitutionatamutu- allyconvenienttimetoviewanyportionsofthepremisesinwhicheventsinis- suetookplaceandtakesuchstillandvideopicturesofthosepremisesashemay reasonablerequire,solongastheirsodoingdoesnotresultinrecognizableim- agesofanyinmateoranyotherpersonwhoobjectstobeingphQtographed. ,~". -11- Conclusion. [20]I'willnotrepeat'orsumm~rizehere thedirectionssetoutinthebodyof thisdecision.Someor"ihedirectionsarenecessarilyvague.Thepartiesarefree .. torefinetheminanymanneronwhichtheycanagree.Ifany'difficultiesarise .duringorasaresult·ofimplementingthesedirections,theseissuesmayber~-. visitedatafuturehearing. DatedatTorontothis16thdayofJune,1999. -/