HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-2779UNION97_12_11
O/IlTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'O/llTARKJ
1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
1BO DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE600, TORONTOONM5G 1ZB TELEPHONEfTELEPHONE (41tJ) 32tJ-1388
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU (J{)(), TORONTO (ON) M5G 1Z8 FACS/MILEfTELECOPIE (41tJ) 32tJ-13Pe
GSB # 2779/96,0141/97
OPSEU # 97U008, 97U056
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Union Gnevance)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown 10 RIght of Ontano
(Ministry ofCommumty and SocIal ServIces)
Employer
BEFORE W Kaplan Vice-ChaIr
FOR THE G Leeb
UNION Gnevance Officer
Ontano Public SefVlce Employees Dmon
FOR THE B Loewen
EMPLOYER Counsel
Legal SefVIces Branch
Management Board Secretanat
HEARING December 10, 1997
~------
2
Introduction
The dispu'ce in this case is one of a number of issues to arise since the
Board issued an extensive remedial order in June 1997 On September 29,
1997, I directed the employer not to
.initiate any plans of care or transfer arrangements for any residents of
any of the facilities subject to the award where the initiation of such
activity had not begun at the time of this award. Put another way, the
employer could continue with transfer arrangements for residents of the
facilities where a substantive step other than the initial notification of
facility closure or transfer has been given
By and large, the parties have been successful in identifying the group of
residents to whom this order indirectly applies However, a dispute arose at
Prince Edward Heights, and that dispute proceeded, at the request of the
parties, to an expedited hearing in Toronto
Position of the Parties
In bnef, it is the position of the union that no substantive steps have been
taken with respect to the placement of certain residents assigned, in a
characterization agreed to by the parties, to either Group I or Group" In
the case of Group I, next of kin of the residents received, in addition to
initial notification of facility closure, a three-page package consisting of a
"Memorandum To Families of Prince Edward Heights Clients" which
references the initial letter, describes in a general way the closure
schedule, and identIfies three Community Placement Coordinators who may
be contacted Also attached is a cover letter to a consent form authorizing
the Ministry to release personal information about the resident to a
transfer payment agency Group II consists of residents whose next of kin
have been contacted by telephone
3
For the union, Mr Leeb argued that the activities summarily described above
could not, on any fair reading, constitute a substantive step In so far as
Group I was concerned, the additional information provided was extremely
general and hardly constituted a movement towards developing a plan of
care Likewise, with respect to Group II, the union pointed out that in one
case, the telephone call to the next of kin, a call limited, for all of the
residents in this group, solely to geographic placement preference of the
resident, was made more than one year ago and neither it, nor the relatively
more recent telephone calls, could be described as a substantive step
For its part, the employer took the position that substantive steps had been
taken in both cases (and it should be noted that while the employer agreed
to argue this matter on the basis of the facts set out above, it did not
concede that its activities were so limited) Counsel referred to some
evidence before the Board indicating the likely reactions of next of kin upon
receipt of the consent form, evidence which further suggested a similar
reaction upon receipt of a telephone call, even one limited to a discussion
of geographic preference in the placement of a resident, and took the
position that the next of kin or other third party would be fully engaged
havmg received eIther the documents or the telephone call And this,
counsel argued, more than met the definition of a substantive step, and the
employer asked for a declaration to that effect.
Decision
Obviously, these are difficult cases Fortunately the parties have, to a great
extent, been able to resolve any disputes without the need of a heanng In
this case, I am satlsifed that a substantive step has been taken in the case
4
of residents in both Group I and Group II and I so declare While it is
somewhat troubling that the step for one of the residents in Group II was
taken more than a year ago, I am not prepared, given the rest of the
evidence indicating much more recent activity, to segregate that individual
from the group Very simply, I am of the view that once the next of kin or
other third party is personally engaged in the planning process, either in a
preliminary way by telephone call seeking geographic preference for
placement or in obtaining the formal legal consent so that personal
information can be released, that constitutes a substantive step distinct
from the general facility closure notification Accordingly, it is my view
that the individuals in Groups I and II are not subject to the restrictions set
out in my earlier order
Finally, it should be noted that there was a dispute between the parties
with respect to four individuals That issue also proceeded before me and
evidence was elicited from the third party planner; evidence establishing a
number of direct contacts, contacts which, by any fair measure, constitute
a substantive step
DA TED at Toronto this 11 th day of December 1997
I
LV (~
William Kaplan
Vice-Chairperson