HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-0534.Hunt et al.09-10-28 Decision
Commission de Commission de
Crown Employeess
Grievance Settlement Grievance Settlement
règlement des griefs règlement des griefs
BoardBoard
des employés de la des employés de la
Couronne Couronne
Suite 600 Suite 600 Bureau 600 Bureau 600
180 Dundas St. West 180 Dundas St. West 180, rue Dundas Ouest 180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tél. : (416) 326-1388 Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396 Fax (416) 326-1396 Téléc. : (416) 326-1396 Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB#2001-0534, 2003-2944, 2008-3397 GSB#2001-0534, 2003-2944, 2008-3397
UNION#2001-0551-0001, 2003-0999-0023, 2008-0526-0018 UNION#2001-0551-0001, 2003-0999-0023, 2008-0526-0018
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
UUnnddeerr
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTHE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT TIVE BARGAINING ACT
BBeeffoorree
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEENBETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
èÏÔÎÏ
(Hunt et al)
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Attorney General)
Employer
BEFOREVice-Chair
Randi H. Abramsky
FOR THE UNION
Tim Hannigan
Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes, LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
FOR THE EMPLOYERLen Hatzis
Ministry of Government Services
Counsel
HEARING
October 15, 2009.
- 2 -
DECISION
[1]At the hearing on the motion to intervene, the Employer raised an issue concerning the
dissemination of its July 21, 2009 memorandum to staff when the Coalition of Concerned Court
Reporters on Ontario introduced it as a document in connection with its motion to intervene.
The Employer asserted that the fact that the memorandum was in the possession of the
Coalition meant that the Board?s Decision of July 17, 2009 had been violated and that it should
be free to disseminate the document and proceed with consultation of the stakeholders involved
(i.e., staff, judges and trial lawyers, among others). The Union opposed the Employer?s
position, and I reserved judgment. This decision addresses the Employer?s request.
[2]There was nothing in the July 17, 2009 decision that prevented the dissemination of the July 21,
2009 memorandum. What it did was preclude the Ministry from beginning to implement its
plan, as outlined in the memorandum and its July 7, 2009 disclosure letter to OPSEU. The
memorandum treated the issue of implementation of the earlier Hunt decision as a ?fait
accompli? when that issue was before the Board. The July 17, 2009 decision states, at
paragraph 18:
Accordingly, I conclude that the Employer may not unilaterally initiate a process
to address the outstanding implementation issues regarding transcript
production, as outlined in its July 7, 2009 letter to OPSEU. It is ordered to cease
and desist?.
[3]The consultation process with stakeholders is part of implementation and is precluded by the
earlier Board Decision.
[4]In so ruling, I do not discount the Ministry?s concerns regarding delay and the impact that is
causing, as the Ministry?s stated in its opening comments during the last day of hearing. In
support of its position, the Ministry will be raising a jurisdictional issue at our next day of
hearing, November 10, 2009, where these issues will be addressed.This Decision simply
addresses the Ministry?s contention that the dissemination of the July 21, 2009 memorandum
violates the earlier Board order and should permit the Ministry to disseminate the document and
begin the consultation process. I conclude that the dissemination of the document did not
violate the Board?s order but that beginning implementation would.
th
Dated at Toronto this 28 day of October 2009.
Randi H. Abramsky, Vice-Chair