HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-3291.Association.17-05-24 Decision
Crown 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#2013-3291, 2015-1003
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Association of Management, Administrative and
Professional Crown Employees of Ontario
(Association) Association
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Treasury Board Secretariat) Employer
BEFORE Nimal Dissanayake Vice-Chair
FOR THE
ASSOCIATION
Marisa Pollock
Goldblatt Partners LLP
Counsel
Ryan Newell
Goldblatt Partners LLP
Counsel
FOR THE EMPLOYER Stewart McMahon
Treasury Board Secretariat
Legal Services Branch
Counsel
CONFERENCE CALL May 17, 2017
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The Association had filed two policy disputes. The parties agreed to defer one
of them, GSB File No: 2013-3291, and first litigate the policy dispute in GSB
File No: 2015-1003. Following multiple days of hearing, by decision dated
September 28, 2016, the Board upheld the policy dispute in File No: 2015-
1003.
[2] A hearing has been scheduled before the Board on June 1, 2017, to deal with
the remaining policy grievance in File No. 2013-3291. On May 17, 2017, a
hearing was held by teleconference with regard to a request for disclosure by
the Association. During the hearing it was revealed that one of the issues in
the dispute is the quantum of monetary entitlement of certain employees, who
had at one time worked within the bargaining unit, but were moved to the
entity called HR Ontario and excluded from the bargaining unit. The employer
made the exclusion relying on the language in the recognition clause of the
collective agreement excluding “those employed in HR Ontario including
Regional Service Delivery Centres and Strategic HR Units”.
[3] In preparation for the scheduled hearing on June 1, 2017, the Association had
requested from the employer (1) all documentation relevant to the calculation
of the employees’ monetary entitlement, and (2) documentation supporting the
employer’s assertion that the positions of Research Analyst (00206970) and
Senior Policy Analyst (00207135) have been “inactive” as of June 2016 and
November 2016 respectively.
[4] The employer did not refuse production altogether. However, it had taken the
position that the requested documents would only be produced to the
Association simultaneously with their presentation to the employees in
question at a group meeting the manager intends to have. At the hearing the
employer maintained that position. Counsel advised that the financial
documentation would be complex, and includes a spread sheet consisting of
- 3 -
multiple pages. At the meeting the manager would review that documentation
as well as other material with the employees, and answer any questions they
may have. The Association seeks an order that the requested production be
made immediately.
[5] The Board considered several factors in granting the order sought by the
Association. The general policy in labour arbitration is in favour of production.
The dispute is a policy dispute filed by the Association. Particularly having
regard to the employer’s description that the material sought is complex,
efficiency of the process requires that the Association be given as much time
as possible in advance of the hearing to review that material. Earlier the
production is, more efficient the process would be. Early production would
increase the chances of resolution of at least some of the issues. Even if
there is no resolution, early production of relevant documents would enable
the parties to be prepared, so that the hearing date may be utilized efficiently.
The employer did not present any valid reason to justify any delay in producing
the requested material to the Association. Significantly, there was no
suggestion that the material is not readily available for production.
[6] Therefore, the Board orally ordered that the employer produce the requested
material to the union, no later than the end of the business day May 18, 2017.
The Association requested that the order be confirmed in writing. Accordingly
the oral order is hereby confirmed, with the caveat that the parties may, by
mutual agreement, extend the timeline for the production of some or all of the
material subject to the order.
[7] The Board remains seized. The hearing will proceed as scheduled.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 24th day of May 2017.
Nimal Dissanayake, Vice-Chair