HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-3907.Grievor.14-07-07 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#2012-3907
UNION#2013-0338-0001
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Grievor) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE Ken Petryshen Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Christopher Bryden
Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
Counsel
FOR THE EMPLOYER Robert Fredericks
Ministry of Government Services
Legal Services Branch
Counsel
HEARING July 3, 2014
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The grievance before me concerns the termination of the Grievor’s
employment in 2012. The Grievor had been employed as a Probation & Parole Officer.
This proceeding has had many hearing days thus far and will require a number of
additional hearing days. The Employer has completed its evidence.
[2] At the hearing on July 3, 2014, the Employer requested that I not entertain
certain evidence that the Union intends to call on July 10, 2014, the next scheduled
hearing date. Union counsel had advised counsel opposite that the Union would be
calling a police officer as its first witness on July 10, as well as the nature of the
testimony he expected to elicit from this witness. I heard extensive and thorough
submissions from each counsel on the question of whether I should permit the Union to
call the police officer having regard to the testimony she is expected to give, the timing of
relevant events and the issues that are before me in this proceeding. In support of the
Employer’s position that the evidence the Union intends to call is not relevant, cogent or
helpful in determining the issues in dispute, Employer counsel relied on Re Laurentian
Hospital and Ontario Nurses’ Assn. (1997), 67 L.A.C. (4th) 289 (Pineau) and Re Greater
Niagara Transit Commission and Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1582, [1987] O.J.
No. 835 (Div. Ct.). The Union takes the position that the testimony of the police officer
is important to certain aspects of its case and is at least arguably relevant. In addition to
referring me to section 48(1) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, Union
counsel relied on the following decisions: Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières v.
Larocque, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 471; OPSEU (Union) and Ministry of Government Services
- 3 -
(2012), GSB No. 2002-2441 (Petryshen); OPSEU (Sin) and Liquor Control Board of
Ontario (2008), GSB No. 2005-3601 (Dissanayake) and Re Hotel-Dieu Grace Hospital
and Ontario Nurses’ Assn. (2010), 195 L.A.C. (4th) 383 (Crljenica).
[3] I have taken the time to carefully review and consider the submissions on the
Employer’s motion to exclude the testimony of the police officer. Given that July 10 will
soon be upon us and a quick decision on the motion is required, I have accepted the
invitation of both parties to provide a ruling on the motion without reasons. I will
therefore not set out the anticipated testimony of the police officer, the factual context for
the motion and the detailed submissions of counsel.
[4] The essential question before me on this motion is whether the testimony the
Union intends to elicit from the police officer is arguably relevant. It is my conclusion
that the testimony at issue is at least arguably relevant. The Employer’s motion is hereby
dismissed. Of course, counsel will have the opportunity during final argument to
comment on the weight, if any, to be given to the testimony of the police officer.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 7th day of July 2014
Ken Petryshen, Vice-Chair