The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012-3909.Union.14-05-06 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#2012-3909 UNION#2012-0546-0079 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Union) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community and Social Services) Employer BEFORE Ken Petryshen Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION Alison-Nielsen Jones Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer FOR THE EMPLOYER Caroline Cohen Ministry of Government Services Legal Services Branch Counsel HEARING May 2, 2014 - 2 - Decision [1] In a grievance dated December 10, 2012, the Union claims that the Employer is in violation of article 22.14 “by failing to disclose the appropriate documentation at the earliest stages of the grievance process.” The particular provision the Union asserts has been contravened by the Employer when it fails to disclose relevant documentation after the Union has provided particulars of a grievance is article 22.14.5 of the Collective Agreement. This proceeding is governed by article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement. [2] The focus of the parties in this matter was on the following two provisions in article 22: 22.14.4 The parties agree that principles of full disclosure of issues in dispute as alleged by the grievance advanced by the Union on behalf of a member or members, or the Union itself, and full disclosure of facts relied upon by management in a decision that is subject to a grievance, are key elements in amicable and expeditious dispute resolution process. 22.14.5 The parties agree that at the earliest stage of the grievance procedure, either party upon request is entitled to receive from the other, full disclosure. [3] The parties had agreed that the Union would provide particulars of its claim in order to set out a factual context for this dispute. What the parties filed at the hearing was a document created by a collaborative effort of the Union representative and Employer counsel. The relevant facts as set out in that document are as follows: The Grievance 1. This Union grievance was filed by OPSEU Local 546 on December 10, 2012 against the Ministry of Community and Social Services, ODSP Branch, Central West Region (Mississauga and Brampton offices). - 3 - 2. The Union alleges that the Employer has repeatedly breached Collective Agreement Article 22.14 by failing, on numerous occasions, to disclose the appropriate documentation to the Union at the earliest stages of the grievance process. 3. Since the filing of the grievance, the Employer has continued to breach Collective Agreement Article 22.14 in the manner specified in Paragraph 2. 4. Article 22.14.4 of the Collective Agreement between the Parties reads, “The parties agree that principles of full disclosure of issues in dispute as alleged by a grievance advanced by the Union on behalf of a member or members, or the Union itself, and full disclosure of facts relied upon by management in a decision that is subject to a grievance, are key elements in amicable and expeditious dispute resolution processes.” 5. Article 22.14.5 of the Collective Agreement reads, “The parties agree that at the earliest stage of the grievance procedure, either party upon request is entitled to receive from the other, full disclosure.” 6. Prior to the filing of this grievance, the Union filed several individual grievances on behalf of its members. These individual grievances alleged harassment, discrimination and/or failure to accommodate a medical disability, and unfair job competition. Neil Martin 7. On June 14, 2012, the Union filed a grievance on behalf of Neil Martin (2012-0546- 0080), alleging harassment due to Union activity perpetrated by manager Ellen Kester. In the body of the Grievance Settlement Desired (“Appendix B”), the Union wrote, “6. Disclosure of all emails, documents and files from any person having dealings with this matter.” 8. As the grievance related to an email sent by Ellen Kester, Manager, to Ms. Mustillo and Mr. Martin, the Union submitted to the Employer a copy of the email with the Grievance Form. 9. On June 21, 2012, Ms. Gordon-Adams sent an email to the Union to confirm the Stage 2 meeting date for Mr. Martin. Among other statements, she wrote, “At this time the Ministry is requesting advance disclosure of all the issues and facts in support of the grievance pursuant to Article 22.14.4.” 10. Subsequent to receiving Ms. Gordon-Adams’ email, the Union informed the Employer that it had no additional information/documentation to disclose as the allegations had been well-particularized in the Grievance Form (with appendices) and the Union had already provided the Employer with a copy of the email at issue. 11. On November 27, 2012, the Stage 2 meeting for grievance 2012-0546-0080 (Martin) was held. In attendance were the Grievor, Thomas MacKay (Local Union President), Ellen Kester (Manager), Nadia Mustillo (Program Manager), Joy Gordon-Adams (Human Resources Advisor) and Brenda LeMoine (Designee). - 4 - 12. During the Stage 2 meeting, the Union and Grievor provided the Employer with detailed explanations of the allegations and facts relating to both of the grievance at issue. 13. In particular, the Union and Grievor stated that it had concerns regarding where the email originated (as it had been forwarded to Ms. Kester’s work email account), who wrote the original email and the fact that the Employer had decided not to proceed with a Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy (WDHP) investigation despite the receipt of the email, which alleged that Mr. Martin had contravened the WDHP. 14. Also during the Stage 2 meeting, the Union requested from the Employer all disclosure relating to the email, such as from where did the email originate, any other emails written and sent as a result of the email, the Employer’s notes with respect to the email and any other relevant disclosure, as well as all disclosure relating to the decision not to proceed with a Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy (WDHP) investigation. 15. Ms. Kester informed the Union that she had forwarded the email from her home email address; however, the Employer never provided the Union with the full email chain, as requested. 16. Specifically, the Union requested and the Employer failed to produce, the following disclosure: a. The entire email chain that resulted in the email from Ms. Kester to Mr. Martin dated June 12, 2012. b. Any and all documentation relating to the Employer’s decision not to undertake a WDHP investigation regarding the events referred to in the email of June 12, 2012, including, but not limited to, meeting notes and telephone discussion notes. Employer Response: This grievance was withdrawn at the GSB. Mr. Martin is not an employee of the Ministry. Other than the emails that the grievor had seen, there were no other documents to share, and the grievor was advised of this during the stage 2 meeting. At stage two the Employer confirmed that it had not been sent to anyone other than the people to whom it had been addressed. At the Stage 2 meeting the Employer advised the Union that Ms. Kester had advised Ms. Mustillo that she did not wish to file a WDHP complaint against Mr. Martin but would consider doing so if his behavior continued, and that in the circumstances, no investigation had been conducted. The Employer also advised the Union that the verbal conversations between Ms. Mustillo and Ms. Kester were not transcribed. Ms. Kester had no other e-mails, and neither she nor Ms. Mustillo had any notes of any telephone conversations with Ms. Mustillo about this issue. - 5 - Anna Joseph 17. On June 21, 2012, the Union filed a grievance on behalf of Anna Joseph (2012-0546- 0074), alleging personal harassment perpetrated by manager Suzi Ardito and harassment in contravention of the Ontario Human Rights Code. 18. On October 23, 2012, Mr. MacKay sent an email to Ms. Gordon-Adams, HRA, copying Mr. Martin and Ms. Singh, to schedule the Stage 2 meetings for Ms. Joseph’s and other grievances. 19. Among other statements, Mr. MacKay wrote, “I am requesting full disclosure of all of the information including but [not] limited to, team members who have taken part in discussions including team member name, position and contact information, emails, phone calls, written or other communication with respect to conversations and decisions related to the grievances, dates of meetings, minutes or outline of meetings, attendees of the meetings, authors of all of the letters to workers requesting additional information, talking about benefit entitlement, return to work, consequences, reporting relationship, decisions and implementation of the decisions as well as direction to carry out any of the decisions and the team member who is to complete the direction..” 20. On October 30, 2012, Ms. Gordon-Adams sent an email to the Union to confirm the Stage 2 meeting date for Ms. Joseph. Among other statements, she wrote, “At this time the Ministry is requesting advance disclosure of all the issues and facts in support of the grievance pursuant to Article 22.14.4.” 21. In this email, and despite already having received the Union’s request for disclosure in this matter, Ms. Gordon-Adams did not request any additional precision with respect to the types of disclosure requested by the Union. 22. Subsequent to receiving Ms. Gordon-Adams’ email, the Union informed the Employer that it had no additional information/documentation to disclose as the allegations had been well-particularized in the Grievance Form. 23. On November 9, 2012, the Stage 2 meeting for grievance 2012-0546-0074 (Joseph) was held. In attendance were the Grievor, Thomas MacKay (Local Union President), Ms. Ardito (Manager), Ms. Mustillo (Program Manager), Joy Gordon-Adams (Human Resources Advisor) and Victoria Peace (Designee). 24. During the Stage 2 meeting, the Union and Grievor provided the Employer with detailed explanations of the allegations and facts relating to the grievance at issue. More specifically, the Union alleged that the Employer improperly and repeatedly requested medical information from the Grievor and requested that the Grievor’s doctor respond to highly unusual and problematic questions relating to the Grievor’s health. The Union further alleged that the Employer was in the practice of requesting and requiring medical documentation for sick leaves of absence of less than five (5) consecutive days. 25. Also during the Stage 2 meeting, the Union requested from the Employer disclosure of the Employer’s policy relating to requests for medical information. The Employer (Ms. - 6 - Gordon-Adams) informed the Union that it would provide the Union with this disclosure subsequent to the Stage 2 meeting. 26. During the Stage 2 meeting, while the Union did not again request the disclosure referred to in Paragraph 19 above, Mr. MacKay noted that the Employer had not yet provided the disclosure referred to in Paragraph 19 above.* *Note that the Parties have not resolved a dispute regarding whether or not Mr. MacKay noted that the disclosure had not yet been provided to the Union. However, the Parties do not believe that anything turns on this dispute. 27. Specifically, the Union requested and the Employer agreed to produce, but failed to produce, the following disclosure: a. The Employer’s policy relating to requests for medical information. 28. Specifically, the Union requested and the Employer failed to produce, the following disclosure: b. The Employer’s investigation (interview notes, communications, reports) into the harassment allegations raised by the Grievor. c. This includes meeting notes, telephone discussion notes, arguably relevant communication (electronic or otherwise), policies/procedures relied upon by the Employer in making its decisions and any decisions regarding actions to be taken by the Employer. Employer response: For this and the other grievances at issue, the HRA used a template email requesting disclosure of issues and facts. The Union and employees have access through the HRO intranet to all OPS Policies. The allegation of harassment only came to the Employer’s attention when the grievance form was filed. Therefore, no investigation had been conducted by the time the Stage 2 was held. At the Stage 2, the Stage 2 Designee advised the grievor that she could file a formal WDHP complaint. Margarett Da Ponte 29. On June 27, 2012, Mr. Sirmis, Business Manager, telephoned Mr. Martin to discuss Margarett Da Ponte’s situation. He was well-aware of the situation and informed Mr. Martin that the Employer did not wish another medical note from Ms. Da Ponte and that she would be deemed to have abandoned her post if she did not return to work and that he did not believe that Ms. Da Ponte was discriminated against. Mr. Martin asked Mr. Sirmis from whom he was receiving advice to have Ms. Da Ponte deemed to have abandoned her post; Mr. Sirmis would not confirm from whom he was receiving this advice. - 7 - 30. On June 28, 2012, the Union filed a grievance of behalf of Margarett da Ponte (2012- 0546-0077), alleging discrimination on the basis of a medical disability and harassment perpetrated by manager Ellen Kester. 31. In the body of the Grievance Settlement Desired (“Appendix B”), the Union wrote: 5. Immediate disclosure of all emails, documents and files from any person having dealings with this matter and any material being relied upon to support the employer’s position. 6. Disclosure of the name of the person(s) making the decision that I was to be threatened with abandoning my position. 32. On October 23, 2012, Ms. Gordon-Adams sent an email to the Union to confirm the Stage 2 meeting date for Ms. Da Ponte. Among other statements, she wrote, “At this time the Ministry is requesting advance disclosure of all the issues and facts in support of the grievance pursuant to Article 22.14.4.” 33. Subsequent to receiving Ms. Gordon-Adams’ email, the Union informed the Employer that it had no additional information/documentation to disclose as the allegations had been well-particularized in the Grievance Form and that Mr. Sirmis was already aware of the particulars of the grievance. 34. On November 2, 2012, the Stage 2 meeting for grievance 2012-0546-0077 (Da Ponte) was held. In attendance were the Grievor, Thomas MacKay (Local Union President), Ellen Kester (Manager), Nadia Mustillo (Program Manager), Joy Gordon-Adams (Human Resources Advisor) and Ellen Stevenson (Designee). 35. During the Stage 2 meeting, the Union and Grievor provided the Employer with detailed explanations of the allegations and facts relating to the grievance at issue. 36. In particular, the Union questioned the Employer’s decision to send Ms. Da Ponte home from the workplace and alleged that action was discriminatory, explained to the Employer that it viewed the Employer’s subsequent actions with respect to Ms. Da Ponte (while she was out of the workplace) as inappropriate and discriminatory (in particular, when not allowing her to return to the workplace for some time) and alleged that the Employer engaged in further discrimination and inappropriate behaviour when it threatened to deem Ms. Da Ponte to have abandoned her post. 37. Also during the Stage 2 meeting, the Union again requested from the Employer the disclosure requested on the Grievance Form. 38. Specifically, the Union requested and the Employer failed to produce, the following disclosure, nor did it confirm to the Union whether or not any such documentation existed: a. The disclosure requested at #5 of the “Grievance Settlement Desired” on the face of the Grievance Form: “Immediate disclosure of all emails, documents and files from any person having dealings with this matter and any material being relied upon to support the employers position.” - 8 - i. This includes meeting notes, telephone discussion notes, arguably relevant communication (electronic or otherwise), policies/procedures relied upon by the Employer in making its decisions and any decisions regarding actions to be taken by the Employer. Employer’s Response: This grievance was settled at the GSB. As is evident from the instant particulars, at the time the request for disclosure was made, no particulars of the grievance had been provided other than the grievance form and appendices thereto. The Union had filed two (2) grievances on behalf of Ms. DaPonte. The Stage 2 for the first grievance was on June 14th (re failure to accommodate). The Stage 2 for the second grievance (harassment and discrimination) was held on Nov 2. The Union’s allegation regarding the Employer’s failure to provide disclosure is in relation to the second grievance. During the Stage 2 meeting of the second grievance, almost at the very beginning of the meeting, the Union stated that no disclosure had been provided. Ms. Mustillo advised that in her experience, disclosure of evidence or documents were not part of Stage 2; Stage 2 was an opportunity to clarify facts and issues at hand. No documents were provided before, during or after the Stage 2 meeting. Generally, notes of phone conversations are not kept. Minutes of meetings among managers are not taken and many decisions/discussions among management are only verbal, not written. This was communicated to the Union. E-mails existed relating to the Employer’s decision to send the employee home. Jody Singh 39. On July 23, 2012, the Union filed a grievance of behalf of Jody Singh (2012-0546-0069), alleging harassment perpetrated by manager Suzi Ardito. 40. On August 2, 2012, the Union filed a grievance of behalf of Jody Singh (2012-0546- 0070), alleging that the Employer improperly failed to pay travel time. 41. On September 27, 2012, the Union filed a grievance of behalf of Jody Singh (2012-0546- 0071), alleging a failure to accommodate a medical disability. 42. On October 23, 2012, Mr. MacKay sent an email to Ms. Gordon-Adams, HRA, copying Mr. Martin and Ms. Singh, to schedule the Stage 2 meetings for Ms. Singh’s and other grievances. 43. Among other statements, Mr. MacKay wrote, “I am requesting full disclosure of all of the information including but [not] limited to, team members who have taken part in discussions including tem member name, position and contact information, emails, phone - 9 - calls, written or other communication with respect to conversations and decisions related to the grievances, dates of meetings, minutes or outline of meetings, attendees of the meetings, authors of all of the letters to workers requesting additional information, talking about benefit entitlement, return to work, consequences, reporting relationship, decisions and implementation of the decisions as well as direction to carry out any of the decisions and the team member who is to complete the direction. In the case of Jody Sing[h] the people to whom her medical information [has] been disclosed, who made the decision to disclose and how that information was communicated.” 44. On October 30, 2012, Ms. Gordon-Adams sent an email to the Union to confirm the Stage 2 meeting date for Ms. Singh. Among other statements, she wrote, “At this time the Ministry is requesting advance disclosure of all the issues and facts in support of the grievance pursuant to Article 22.14.4.” 45. Subsequent to receiving Ms. Gordon-Adams’ email, the Union informed the Employer that it had no additional information/documentation to disclose as the allegations had been well-particularized in the Grievance Forms and were further fleshed out in discussions between the Union and the HR Advisor following the filing of the grievances, wherein the Union overviewed the Grievor’s entitlement to accommodation for her disability, the Employer’s continued failure to accommodate the Grievor despite the provision of medical documentation, the Employer’s repeated inappropriate requests for medical information, Ms. Ardito’s harassment of the Grievor and the Employer’s breach of the Grievor’s confidentiality in relation to her medical information. 46. On November 9, 2012, the Stage 2 meeting for grievances 2012-0546-0069; 0070 and 0071 (Singh) was held. In attendance were the Grievor, Thomas MacKay (Local Union President), Susanna Ardito (Manager), Nadia Mustillo (Program Manager), Joy Gordon- Adams (Human Resources Advisor) and Victoria Peace (Designee). 47. During the Stage 2 meeting, the Union and Grievor provided the Employer with detailed explanations of the allegations and facts relating to the grievances at issue. 48. In particular, the Union stated that the Grievor had demonstrated that she had a disability for which she was entitled to accommodation, and that her medical practitioner had cleared her to return-to-work, and yet the Employer continued to fail to accommodate the Grievor by refusing to return her to work. The Union questioned the Employer’s multiple requests for medical information and requested to know who, specifically, had drafted the requests for information and why. The Union alleged that the Employer had breached the Grievor’s confidentiality in improperly disclosing the Grievor’s medical information and questioned to whom the information had been given as well as questioned who had made the decision to disclose this information. The Union further detailed the allegations of harassment grieved by the Grievor, consistent with the wording of her grievance (2012- 0546-0069). 49. Also during the Stage 2 meeting, the Union again requested from the Employer the disclosure requested on October 23, 2012 by email, detailed below. The Union further requested, specifically, what information was shared with the Grievor’s manager and by - 10 - whom. The Union further informed Ms. Peace, Designee, that the Employer’s failure to disclose pertinent documentation made it difficult for the Union to proceed appropriately. 50. Ms. Mustillo stated that the Employer would not disclose this information to the Union and that this had been the Employer’s practice for “some time.” She further stated that the Employer “may” disclose this type of information at arbitration. 51. Specifically, the Union requested and the Employer failed to produce, the following disclosure: a. A copy of the specific documentation provided by the HR Advisor to the Grievor’s manager, Ms. Ardito. b. Any and all documentation and communication relating to: 1) The Employer’s attempts to accommodate the Grievor; 2) The Employer’s decisions regarding the Grievor’s accommodation; and 3) The Employer’s investigation (interview notes, communications, reports) into the harassment allegations raised by the Grievor. c. Any policies and/or procedures relied upon by the Employer in requesting further medical information from the Grievor. Employer’s Response: This case was settled at the GSB and the grievor is no longer an employee of the OPS. The Employer did not realize there was an allegation of harassment prior to the grievance form being filed. Accordingly, no investigation had been conducted at the time the Stage 2 was held. The Union was advised of this at the Stage 2, and the employee was advised to contact WDHP if she wished to file a harassment complaint. At the Stage 2 meeting, the Employer clarified that only the HR personnel, the grievor’s manager and Ms. Mustillo had access to the medical information in order to facilitate an accommodation for her. Charlie Kowalski 52. On October 9, 2013, the Union filed a grievance of behalf of Charlie Kowalski, alleging that the Employer unjustly denied the Grievor an interview in a job competition and alleging that the Employer was bullying and harassing him. 53. In the body of the Grievance Settlement Desired, the Union wrote: 3. Disclosure of the application and competition files for all applicants, all of my personnel files including local files held by management. 5. Disclosure of why I was not selected for an interview on the 3 occasions (sic) I have applied. 54. On October 23, 2013, Ms. Durrant requested additional disclosure relating to the grievance, by email to Ms. Ardito, Ms. Denise Ryckman, Manager, Ms. Fiorinta - 11 - Flammia, HRA, and Mr. Martin. She requested, “Disclosure for competition grievance, including but not limited to: Who applied? Resumes and cover letters; Seniority for application; Selection Scoring; Who screened the applicants; Notes of screeners; Scoring criteria.” 55. On November 4, 2013, the Formal Resolution Meeting for Mr. Kowalski’s grievance was held. In attendance were the Grievor, Carole Durrant (Union Representative), Nadia Mustillo (Program Manager), Fiorinta Flammia (Human Resources Advisor) and Danny Sirmis (Designee). 56. Ms. Durrant opened the discussion by indicating that the Union saw no reason to proceed as the requested disclosure had not yet been provided to the Union. Mr. Sirmis requested that the meeting proceed regardless in order to attempt to resolve the issues. The Union consented to proceed but reserved its right to request and require the disclosure. 57. Ms. Flammia addressed the Union’s emailed request for disclosure, point by point, but no disclosure was provided. Ms. Mustillo informed the Union that both she and Ms. Ardito had assisted in the scoring criteria and that she had scored Mr. Kowalski’s resume. She further stated that she did not have the competition file in her possession. 58. Ms. Mustillo stated that when scoring occurs, all data is entered into a spreadsheet. Ms. Durrant requested the spreadsheet, but Ms. Mustillo refused, stating that providing the spreadsheet “wouldn’t be helpful.”* *Note that the Parties have not resolved a dispute regarding whether or not Ms. Mustillo refused to provide the spreadsheet (see Employer’s response below). However, the Parties do not believe that anything turns on this dispute. The Parties agree that Ms. Mustillo informed the Union that providing them with the spreadsheet would not be helpful, and that Ms. Mustillo did not provide the spreadsheet to the Union. 59. The Employer provided the Union with one (1) of the requested types of documentation regarding the competition: the selection criteria. The Employer also verbally confirmed to the Union who had conducted the screening (Ms. Mustillo and Ms. Ardito). 60. Following the Stage 2 meeting, Ms. Mustillo met with Mr. Kowalski with the union present. The meeting lasted approximately two (2) hours. During the meeting, she showed the Grievor her scoring/remarks regarding his experience and skills, made suggestions about future competitions and disclosed the Grievor’s ranking in the competition. She further reviewed the Grievor’s resume against the selection criteria. 61. Specifically, the Union requested and the Employer failed to produce, the following disclosure: a. The names, resumes and cover letters of all applicants (for all applicants other than the Grievor). b. The selection scoring for all applicants (for all applicants other than the Grievor). c. Screeners’ notes (for all applicants other than the Grievor). - 12 - d. The spreadsheet referred to by Ms. Mustillo in Paragraph 57. Employer’s Response: This grievance arose after the mediation in the instant policy grievance, and was settled after the Stage 2. The grievance alleges an unjust denial of an interview in a competition. The remedy requests disclosure of why the grievor was not selected on three prior occasions he had applied. The Union and grievor were not able to advise the Employer which three (3) competitions this was referring to. Mr. Kowalski had not grieved any previous competitions and the Employer’s position was that he would have been excessively untimely were he to attempt to do so at that time. The Union had also requested the competition files including the replies and scores from the interviews themselves. The HR Advisor and Ms. Mustillo explained in general terms about the HR file his manager would have and that it did not contain any information that would be used or factored into a competition. Ms. Mustillo advised the grievor to discuss with his manager as to whether he could access the working file she would have on him. Ms. Mustillo did not refuse to provide the spreadsheet, but advised that since she did not have the competition file with her, it was not something she had readily available. She did indicate that she did not believe the spreadsheet would be helpful. During the stage two meeting, the HR Advisor provided the selection criteria used to score resumes, as well as the responses to the Union’s other questions, by providing a hard copy of an e- mail containing this information (attached). It did not provide the interview results as it advised the Union that those were irrelevant to a screening decision. [4] Employer counsel made three submissions on preliminary matters that might have led to the dismissal of the grievance without a determination of the merits. I advised the parties before the conclusion of the hearing that I would not address the preliminary issues raised by the Employer since a determination of the merits of the grievance would provide the parties with a better labour relations result. [5] I do not intend to review the submissions on the merits in any detail. The essence of the Union’s position is that section 22.14.4 is the section which deals with particulars and that section 22.14.5 contains a broader disclosure obligation, including the obligation to disclose - 13 - relevant documents. In addition to sections 4:2110 and 4:2120 in Canadian Labour Arbitration, Brown & Beatty dealing with certain principles of interpretation, the Union representative relied on the following decisions: CUPE, Local 1750 (Union) and Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (2014), GSB No. 2012-4654 (Gray); AMAPCEO (Raveendra) and Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (2010), GSB No. 2009-2441 (Dissanayake); OPSEU (Hall) and Liquor Control Board of Ontario (2013), GSB No. 2012-0551 (Devins); and, OPSEU (Union) v. Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, [2004] O.G.S.B.A. No. 62 (Mikus). [6] The Employer’s position is that section 22.14.5 does not create any new disclosure obligations different from those contained in section 22.14.4. Employer counsel submitted that sections 22.14.4 and 22.14.5 must be viewed together and when doing so it is clear that 22.14.5 is only referencing the disclosure obligations contained in section 22.14.4. In addition to also referring me to the Hall decision by Vice-Chair Devins, supra, Employer counsel relied on the following decisions: R. Chyczij and Ministry of Labour (2001), PSGB No. P/0017/00 (Maeots); OPSEU (Union) and Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (2006), GSB No. 2003-3766 (Briggs); and, OPSEU (Lewis) v. Ministry of Education and Training, [2000] O.G.S.B.A. No. 66 (Abramsky). [7] Having reviewed the relevant Collective Agreement language and having considered the submissions, I am satisfied that the interpretation advanced by the Employer is to be referred. As I set out my reasons for this conclusion, it is useful to reproduce the Collective Agreement provisions at issue: 22.14.4 The parties agree that principles of full disclosure of issues in dispute as alleged by the grievance advanced by the Union on behalf of a member or members, or the Union itself, and full disclosure of facts relied upon by - 14 - management in a decision that is subject to a grievance, are key elements in amicable and expeditious dispute resolution process. 22.14.5 The parties agree that at the earliest stage of the grievance procedure, either party upon request is entitled to receive from the other, full disclosure. [8] Section 22.14.4 sets out two principles which are to contribute to an amicable and expeditious resolution of grievances. The two principles are the full disclosure of issues in dispute and the full disclosure of facts relied upon by management. If the parties had only agreed to these two principles and nothing more, a question would arise as to how these principles would be implemented and when the obligations arose. In my view, the parties addressed these practical elements of full disclosure in section 22.14.5. It is in this section that the parties provide that the principles of full disclosure as referenced in section 22.14.4 arise at the earliest stage of the grievance procedure upon the request of either party. I agree with the submission that these two sections of the Collective Agreement must be read together to appreciate the intention of the parties. The words “full disclosure” in section 22.14.5 are only intended to reference full disclosure as provided for in section 22.14.4. Section 22.14.5 is more akin to a procedural provision, not a substantive one that creates additional rights to disclosure. [9] The position of the Union appears to equate disclosure with production. If the parties had intended section 22.14.5 to entitle a party to request the production of documents at the earliest stage of the grievance procedure, one would have thought that such an intention would have been clearly expressed, given that production issues are not normally dealt with during the grievance procedure. Section 22.14.5 contains no such clear expression of intention. - 15 - [10] For the foregoing reasons, I find that section 22.14.5 does not generally oblige a party to produce documents as part of its disclosure obligation. Accordingly, the Union grievance dated December 10, 2012, is hereby dismissed. Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 6th day of May 2014. Ken Petryshen, Vice-Chair