HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-3447.Stevens-Vardjas.06-10-12 Decision
Commission de
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
règlement des griefs
Board
des employés de la
Couronne
Suite 600 Bureau 600
180 Dundas St. West 180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396 Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2004-3447
UNION# 2004-0248-0210
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Stevens-Vardjas)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFORE Vice-Chair
Barry Stephens
FOR THE UNION
Scott Andrews
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER Mary-Jo Knappett
Staff Relations Officer
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
HEARING
May 24, 2006
SUBMISSIONS
September 1, 2006.
2
Decision
INTRODUCTION
The parties have agreed to a Med-Arb Protocol, signed February 27, 2006. It is not necessary to
reproduce the entire Protocol here. Suffice it to say that, as part of the Protocol, the parties have
agreed to a ?True Mediation-Arbi tration? process, wherein each provides the vice-chair with
submissions, which include the facts and author ities each relies upon. The process adopted by
the parties provides for a canvassing of the fact s during the mediation ph ase under the Protocol.
Arbitration decisions are issued in accordance with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement,
without reasons, and are without prejudice or preceden t. The parties were unable to resolve this
matter in mediation. Accordingly, the matte r has been referred to me as a True
Mediation/Arbitration deci sion under the Protocol.
At the beginning of the session on May 24, 2006, it was determined that the union had not
provided the employer with full or appropriate Ap pendix B?s, as required under the Protocol, and
as a result, the employer had been unable to prepare appropriate Appendix C?s. I met with the
representatives of the parties, and it was agreed the three-day mediati on session would proceed.
In order to assist the parties, I advised that the union would be expected to prepare appropriate
Appendix B?s prior to the discussion of any speci fic case. This they did, and, in the process,
numerous grievances were withdrawn by the uni on. The employer then reviewed each grievance,
and mediation was attempted. There were a number of grievances referred to arbitration, and the
employer was provided with a full opportunity to submit formal Appendix C?s after the session.
3
FACTS
The grievor complains that her medical confid entiality was breached during a meeting held on
November 24, 2004. The meeting was held to disc uss the grievor?s status under the Attendance
Support Program. There were two employer representatives present, as well as the grievor and a
union representative. It does not appear to be contested that, at some point during the meeting,
one of the employer representati ve, James Craig, divulged to the others information about the
grievor?s medical condition. The union asserts this is a br each of the grievor?s medical
confidentiality, and seeks an order that the grievor deal with a different management
representative with respect to her medical/attendance issues.
The employer responds that the meeting was held in a private locatio n under the terms of a
medical release signed by the grievor. The medical release reads as follows:
I consent to releasi ng the above information to my employer in accordance with
provisions of the OPS agreements negotia ted with bargaining agents, provincial
legislation/statutes and OPS policies and programs.
I was not provided with copies of any of the agreements, policies or programs cited in the
release. Nor did I receive submissions on specific legislative pr ovisions or statutes.
INTERIM RULING
In my view, this grievance raises a significant is sue with respect to the confidentiality of medical
information. As I have not been provided the full documentation referred to in the release, nor
the benefit of submissions on those as they are to be applied in the context of the laws of the
province, it is my view that this matter should not be decided under the ?true
mediation/arbitration?: procedure under the protocol. If either party feels strongly that the matter
should proceed directly to JFR, I am ready to re ceive submissions on the point. Otherwise, it is
4
my view that this matter should be more fu lly addressed under the Expedited Arbitration
procedure set out in the protocol.
th
Dated at Toronto, this 12 day of October, 2006.
________________________
Barry Stephens, Vice-Chair