HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-2654 Pacheco 17-09-11 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#2010-2654
UNION#2010-0234-0283
Additional grievances noted in Appendix “A”
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Pacheco) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE Ken Petryshen Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION John Brewin
Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP
Counsel
FOR THE EMPLOYER Suneel Bahal
Treasury Board Secretariat
Legal Services Branch
Counsel
HEARING
September 7, 2017
- 2 -
DECISION
[1] In a decision addressing some production issues dated August 24, 2017, I
directed the Union “to produce any and all notes taken by Mr. Pacheco or by Mr. Jagpal
in relation to meetings held regarding the matters currently being heard by the GSB”. In
relation to that direction I noted that Union counsel had advised that a claim of privilege
might be asserted with respect to some of the notes the Union would produce.
[2] The Union did provide Employer counsel with typed notes pursuant to the
Board’s direction. Parts of the notes were redacted on the ground that those parts were
protected by a privilege. During a discussion I had with counsel at the hearing on
September 7, 2017, Employer counsel advised that the Employer wanted the Union to
produce an unredacted version of the notes. I took this to mean that the Employer
wanted to challenge the Union’s assertion that some parts of the notes were protected
by a privilege. After some further discussion of this issue and as a first step in dealing
with the question of whether parts of the notes were protected by a privilege, I directed
the Union to produce the unredacted version of the notes to Employer counsel to be
viewed only by Employer counsel and co-counsel. I made this direction with the hope
that the issue of privilege could be resolved by the parties. I anticipated that Employer
counsel would review the redacted parts of the notes to determine whether a privilege
claim was sustainable and, from a practicable point of view, whether it was necessary to
have a dispute over this issue. Employer counsel would then be in a position to provide
advice to his client and obtain instructions on this issue. If this initial step to deal with
the privilege issue does not avoid a dispute about the redacted parts of the notes,
counsel can make further submissions on how to resolve the dispute.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 11th day of September 2017.
Ken Petryshen, Arbitrator
- 3 -
Appendix A
GSB Number OPSEU File Number
2012-0727 2012-0234-0066
2013-3214 2013-0234-0359
2014-0350 2014-0234-0061
2014-3305 2014-0234-0458
2014-3846 2014-0234-0508
2014-4854 2015-0234-0030
2015-0390 2015-0234-0058
2015-0494 2015-0234-0069
2015-0495 2015-0234-0070
2015-0496 2015-0234-0071
2015-0913 2015-0234-0085
2015-0914 2015-0234-0086
2015-0915 2015-0234-0087
2015-0916 2015-0234-0088
2015-1310 2015-0234-0108
2015-1311 2015-0234-0109
2015-1312 2015-0234-0110
2015-1313 2015-0234-0111
2015-1314 2015-0234-0112
2015-1315 2015-0234-0113
2015-1316 2015-0234-0114
2015-1317 2015-0234-0115
2015-1318 2015-0234-0116
2015-1319 2015-0234-0117
2015-1320 2015-0234-0118
2015-1321 2015-0234-0119