Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-3483.Koonings&Froner.95-02-02 .. j j EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE I ONTArO CRO~~EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO " 1111 GAEVANCE COMMISSION DE SElrLEMENT REGLEMENT F _ BOA~D. DES GRIEFS , \ 180~~DASSTREiT~/TE2100, TORONTO ON M5G1Z8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE (416)326-1388 . \;;;""." ' , , . 180, RUE DUNDAS. OUeST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ON) M5G 1Z8 FACSIMILE/TELECOPIE (416) 326-1396 - ~ /. ~. GSB# 3483/92,3484/92,3485/92,3486/92 OLBEU# OLB449,50/92,OLB010,11/93 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SET~LEMENT-BOARD BETWEEN OLBEU (Koonings/Froner) Grievor - and - Th~ Crown in Right of Ontario (Liquor Control Board of ontario) Employer I BEFORE: S stewart Vice-Chairperson -'\ t I w. Shipman Member , M. Milich Member [' / I I / FOR THE J. Noble ( r GRIEVOR Legal Counsel ! ontario Liquor Boards Employees Union FOR THE 0 Mombourquette EMPLOYER Counsel Liquor Control Board of ontario HEARING November 10, 1994 ) ~\ ~ I 1 ,( = ~ \', ( ,'\ '\' DECISION ( ", "- " ~~ .~ ~ " The grievors, Ms. K. Froner and Ms. T. Koonin~are casual employees of the Liquor control Board of Ontario. Bot~Ms- - -. Froner and Ms. Koonings filed two grievances dated December ~5, 1992 and January ~3, 1993 alleging harassment and intimidation \ The Union provided notice of these proceedings to Mr. L. \ \ Grant, an employee whose conduct is at issue in these grievances -- Mr. Grant did not attend nor was he represented at the hearing \ At the hearing, counsel made opening statements and f , requested rulings on a number of preliminary issues between the ~arties. The Board made oral rUlings with respect to some of these issues. To their credit, counsel were able to resolve a ~~er of other issues. Argument was not completed until the end \ of the day in relation to further issues and accordingly, the Boar~~s providing its rulings with respect to these matters in writing", ) one~f the remaining issues relates to whether the Union ought to b~precluded from adducing evidence with respect to certain a;ti~s of Mr 0 Goulding, district manager, that took place subseque),\ to the filing of the grievances We agree with - Ms. Noble's subm~ssion that it is the relevance of events rather \ , than their timing that determines theif admissibility. At this \ \ point in the proceedings we are not prepared to rule that this ~ 1: I },: 2 evidence is irrelevant. We will, if and when called upon to do so, make a ruling with respect to this evidence in the course of the hearing, where this matter can be assessed in context. The Union has requested production of a memorandum dated August 30, 1993 from Mr. Goulding to Ms. Sharma. The Employer's position is that as Mr. Goulding's actions subsequent to the filing of the grievances are not relevant, this memorandum is not relevant. The test for production is arguable relevance. In our view, this document is arguably relevant and therefore ought to be produced to the Union. As with the evidence relating to Mr GOUlding, its admiss~bility will be determined if and when the issue arises. We have reached a similar conclusion with respect to the Union's requests for documents relating to staff schedules for \ specified stores and the "sign in and sign out sheets" for those stores for a specified period Again, it is our view that this ) request meets the test of "arguable relevance" and therefore these documents ~hould be produced. We will deal with their J admissibility in the course of the hearing if and when the issue arises. Ms. Noble advised that the Union wishes to adduce evidence regarding statements made at a grievance meeting. Mr. \ Mombourquette advised that the Employer objects to the introduction of this evidence In general, communications between parties at grievance meeti~gs are inadmissible on the ( " J ~ t 3 basis that the settlement objectives of these meetings will be undermined if positions and statements may later be the subject I J I of evidence at arbitration. There may be an exception, such as wh~n the issue is whether there was a settlement reached at the meeting MS Noble urged the Board to determine that this evidence ought to be admitted or, in the alternative, reserve its decision on this issue and deal with it in the course of the hearing. We are unable to accept either position. The circumstances relating to this issue have been clearly defined I and it is appropriate to deal with it at this point. In our I I I view, there is no basis for an exception to the rule prohibiting I I I the introduction of such evidence. Accordingly, it is our ruling that this evidence will not be admitted. Subsequent to the referral of these grievances to arbitration the Employer referred this matter to an internal investigator, Ms. J. De Peza It is the position of the Union that the Employer has improperly failed to provide the grievors with the conclusions of the investigator and has not acted in accordance with the recommendations of the investigator The Union has requested production of the file relating to the investigation, including the conclusions of the report. Mr. Mombourquette advised that the Employer was prepared to produce the documepts - requested with the exception of the opinions and conclusions expressed by the investigator He argued that the Employer's response to conclusions of an internal investigator are beyond / ~, "\ ~ 4 the scope of the grievances before us. We agree with this submission. The Board will make its own independent findings on the basis of the evidence before it in relation to the grievanqes. Evidence relating to the Employer's response to the conclusions in relation to an internal report obtained subsequent to the referral of these grievances to arbitration will not assist the Board In our view, the assessment of an internal process which took place subsequent to the referral of this ~ matter to arbitration is beyond the appropriate scope of these proceedings and should not be undertaken here. Accordingly, we will not direct the production of the opinions and conclusions of the investigator. The continuation of the hearing in tqis matter is to be scheduled by the Registrar in consultation with the parties Dated at ~oronto, this 2nd day of February, , 1995 ~ o..u.>a.u~ S.L stewart - ViCe-Chag~ W. Shipman - Member L'LLJd;LCY M. Milich - Member ~