Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-0897.Union.08-08-07 Decision Commission de Crown Employees Grievance Settlement règlement des griefs Board des employés de la Couronne Suite 600 Bureau 600 180 Dundas St. West180, 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#2007-0897 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 Croyees of Ontario wn Emplo (Union Grievance)Association - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer BEFOREVice-Chair Marilyn A.Nairn FOR THE Michael Mitchell ASSOCIATIONSack Goldblatt Mitchell Barristers and Solicitors FOR THE EMPLOYER Len Hatzis Counsel Ministry of Government Services FOR OSPEURichard Blair Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Barristers and Solicitors HEARING July 30, 2008 2 INTERIM DECISION AMAPCEO has filed a grievance asserting that the Operational Manager positions in the OCR16 classification and any other classification within the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (the ?Ministry?) are improperly excluded from its bargaining unit. OPSEU is seeking to intervene in the hearing of that matter. AMAPCEO takes issue with OPSEU?s right to intervene. Further to an interim decision dated June 12, 2008 documentary material has been produced. Certain production issues remained to be determined. In addition, as a result of the parties? inability to reach full agreement on a statement of facts, AMAPCEO made a further production request. A hearing was held on July 30, 2008 for the purpose of dealing with any and all outstanding production issues. At the hearing the Crown agreed to produce the following material: 1. Any and all Ministry job descriptions in the OCR14, OCR15, and OCR16 classifications in effect from March 1, 1995 to September 8, 2004. 2. Any and all salary ranges for Ministry OCR15 and OCR16 classifications for the period March 1, 1995 to September 8, 2004. 3. Any generic documentary material provided by the Ministry to any/all persons in the OCR14 classification concerning or describing any changes in job duties and/or responsibilities after March 23, 1995 and/or any reclassification of their position. Having heard the representations of the parties regarding disputed production issues, I ruled orally. That ruling is summarized below. The test for production is arguable relevance. The preliminary issue is whether OPSEU has the right to intervene in this proceeding. In support of its position, AMAPCEO asserts that OPSEU has conceded any claim to the OCR14 classification. Further, that the OCR15 and/or OCR16 classifications are, in substance, reclassifications of the OCR14. AMAPCEO seeks to establish that OPSEU has therefore also conceded any claim as it may 3 relate to the OCR15 and OCR16 classifications within the Ministry. In the absence of agreed facts, AMAPCEO is entitled to seek to establish its assertion through viva voce and/or documentary evidence. AMAPCEO seeks to have produced any documentary material sent to incumbents in the OCR14 classification as of March 1995 that speaks to any changes in classification and/or job duties and responsibilities (over and above any generic material that the Crown has agreed to produce). Such documentary material is arguably relevant to the issue of OPSEU?s claim for standing. AMAPCEO sought production of certain personnel files. I decline to make so broad an order. AMAPCEO is directed to forthwith provide to the Crown and OPSEU a list of employees in the OCR 14 classification as of March 1995. The Crown is hereby directed to review the personnel files of those individuals and produce to AMAPCEO and Friday, October 24, 2008 OPSEU by no later than any and all documentary materials (in addition to any generic material already agreed to be produced) that concern or describe any change to the individual?s OCR14 classification to an OCR15 or OCR16 classification and/or any description of duties and responsibilities or change in duties or responsibilities flowing from any such change in classification. There were two documents within its control which OPSEU claimed ought not to be produced on the basis that they were protected by solicitor/client privilege and/or represented legal counsel?s work product. The parties had no objection to my reviewing the documents. I was satisfied that in each case the documents contained legal advice and/or opinion or reflected communications between solicitor and client. An attachment to an e-mail reflected work product, although if the document had been forwarded as correspondence, such correspondence was subject to be produced. Counsel for OPSEU undertook to determine whether the document had in fact been sent. If so, OPSEU agreed it would produce the document. Should any further production issues arise, the parties are to contact the Board for the purpose of convening a telephone conference call prior to the continuation of this matter scheduled for December 3, 2008. Counsel were also advised to seek instructions regarding an outstanding AMAPCEO grievance arising out of the Ministry of Children and Youth Services. 4 The parties are to advise at their earliest opportunity as to their availability for a number of dates canvassed at the hearing as possible continuation dates. th Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 7 day of August, 2008. _____________________________________________ Marilyn A. Nairn, Vice- Chair.