The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutP-2005-3536.Jones.10-07-12 Decision Public Service Grievance &o.d smte mo 180 IJlndas 5t WesI TCJRJrm. QBiD IofiG 1ZB Tel (4-16) 326-1388 Fax (4-16) 326-1396 BETWEEN BEFORE Commission des griefs de la fanction publique ~ Ibeau mo 180. rue IJlndas Ouest. T CJRJrm (OnIario) M5G 1ZB Tel: (4-16) 326-1388 T~ : (4-16) 326-1396 Ontario IN THE MATIER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT Before THE PUBLIC SERVICE GRIEVANCE BOARD Jones - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Minis1Iy of Comrmmity Safety and Correctional Services) Deborah JD_ Leighton Richard L Pollock Mousseau DeLuca McPhelson Prince ILP Banisters and Solicitors Counsel FOR THE COMPLAINANI FOR THE EMPLOYER CONFERENCE CALL Lisa Compagnone Minisky of Government Services Counsel July 6~ 2010_ P-2005-3536 Co.....binaat Enlployer Vtce-Chir -2- Decision [1] The complainant in this ma:tter has applied to 1he board under 1he Public Service of Ontario Act, alleging 1bat her dismissal :from employment is without just cause.. She also alleges 1bat the employer has breached Mlnnfe!;; of Settlement (MOS) dated February 20, 2007_ More particularly, she claims 1bat a job offer made to her pursuant to the settlement was made in bad faith and 1herefore she seeks to tender evidence of events which occmred before the date of the settlement The complainant also seeks to adduce this evidence to prove her state of mind when she went on sick leave and 1hen a11enflM a college :full time, the main reason fO(" her dismissal 1he employer opposes the iIdmduction of this evidence. I heard submissions by way of conference call on July 6.2010_ Thus, this decision addresses the issue ofwhether evidence of events 1bat are the subject matter of a IDeIIlOI3Ildum of settlement between 1he parties is admissible. [2] Having carefully coosidered the submissions of the parties I have decided to grant the employer's motion to exclude the evidence of events which occmred up to the date of 1he settlenaJt on February 20, 2007_ The main reason fO(" deciding so is 1bat 1he MOO clearly provides 1hat all the grievor's oompIaints up to and iDcb](line the date of settlement were resolved for considem:tiOlL Both the preamble and clause 13 of 1he settlement specifically include all possible claims to the date of 1he settlement In Gottwald v. Ministry of Attorney General, (1998) P- 0127-96, this board held 1hat unless 1here is a compelling reason, 1he parties to a settlement are entitled to have 1heir agreements honoored and enforced The mtiooale behind this principle is aptly put by Vice -Chair Knopf in~King, cited in Gottwald: -3- The board wishes to do everything possible to foster and honour settlements reached by 1he parties.. Once settlements are achieved, parties must feel confident 1bat they can rely upoo. 1hem.. Otherwise, 1here would be IHJ incmtive for the parties to even alt~.....t to settle matters_ (pp_8-9) It is important 1bat the board respect the sanctity of meJll()J'andntm;. of settlement Once a matter is settled, unless 1here is some compelling reason to allow 1he evidence, the settled matter shoold not be allowed to come back in a difflaad. guise. [3] I am satisfied 1bat there is IHJ compelling reason in 1bis case to justify an exception to the general principle of sanctity of settIements_ Counsel for 1he complainant argued 1bat if 1he employer has acted in bad fai1h in implemen1ine an MOS, it shoold not be pennitted to rely on it Counsel also made it clear 1bat he was IHJt arguing that the MOS shoold be set aside. The allegation ofbad faith is 1bat 1he employer should not have offered the complainant a job with a manaeer 1bat she believed was her nemesis.. Counsel for the employer noted 1bat the grievOI" in ~1r1ne to return to her old positioo. was prepared to work under 1bis manaea-. The evidence may ultima1P.1y show 1bat 1bis offer should not have been made_ However, I am not persuaded 1bat there is bad faith here_ [4] Counsel for the complainant argued that evidence ofher state of mind was important to both the complaints before me. He argued that whether 1he mana".- in question was a bad person (J(" not, the complainant believed 1bat she was and 1herefore the evidence was relevant. I have decided 1bat 1he complainant may testify to her state of mind in May 2008, without 1he board hearing evidence of what occurred before 1he MOS. -4- [5] The ~ before me are whether the MOS was breached by the employer and whe1her it hadjust cause to terminate 1he complainant's employment with 1he Minisby_ It is 1he evidence of what occurred after the sienine of the memonmdum 1bat is crucial. Thus. for a111he reasons noted above 1he employer's motioo. to exclude evidence of events before February 20, 2007 is hereby granted Dated at Toronto,1bis 12. day of July. 2010_