The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2010-0031.Hussain.11-08-09 Decision en.n EiJJpIo)II!es Grievance Settlement Board smte mo 180 IJlndas 5t WesI TCJRJrm. QBiD IofiG 1ZB Tel (4-16) 326-1388 Fax (4-16) 326-1396 Commission de riglement des griefs des~dela eor.ome Ibeau mo 100. rue IJlndas Ouest TCJRJrm (0nIari0) M5G 1ZB Tel: (4-16)326-1388 T~ : (4-16) 326-1396 IN THE MATIER OF AN ARBITRATION Under ~ ontario GSB#201 0-003 1 UNION#20I0-0542-0008 THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COlLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT BETWEEN BEFORE FOR THE UNION FOR THE EMPLOYER lIEAKING Before THE GRIEVANCE SETILEMENT BOARD Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Hussain) - aad - The Crown in Right of Ontario (MinisUy ofCommnnity and Social Services) Joseph D_ Carrier Jane Letton Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP BarristeIs and SolicitOIs Benjamin Parry Minis1Iy of Government Services Labour Practice Group Counsel July 28, 2011 U_n Employer Vtre-Chair -2- Decision [1] At 1he commencement ofhearing 00. July 28, 20111he Union brought fodh a motioo. ~1r1ne :fur1her disclosme :from 1he Employer fOl" <<any and all documents, emails, investigations, reports regarding IT investigations or knowledge of IT policy violations" for six-named individuahL The Employer disputed 1he sufficiency of1he particulars provided which fonned 1he basis of 1he Union's disclosure request [2] Union counsel argued 1bat 1he disclosure requested was arguably relevant to 1he matter in dispute since 1he GrievoI:" was terminated in part as a result of misuse of 1he Employer's IT resources_ The individuals identified in 1he particulars were ~~ne in similar misconduct and 1bat 1he Employer has 1he applicable infonnation in its possession. Should 1he disclosme not be mdered 1he Unioo. sought an opportunity to provide additiooal particulars. The Unioo. relied upoo. OPSEU v. Minis1Iy of Cmmmmity Safety and Conectiooal Services (Disclosme Grievance) (F D_ Briggs) GSB#2003-3766_ [3] Employer counsel argued 1bat 1he particulars were devoid of any facts besides 1he name of an individnal Counsel relied on a number of cases to say 1bat 1he <<who" "what" "when" "where" and "how" must be provided and that 1he particulars must point to a matter reIated to 1he grievOL The Employer stressed 1bat 1he Union did not allege 1bat 1he infonnation was even alleged to have been within 1he Employer's knowledge_ The Employer asked 1bat 1he motion be dismi~~ The Employer relied upon OPSEU v_ Minis1Iy ofCommnnity Safety and Correctional ServilrS (Disclosme Grievance) (F D_ Briggs) GSB#2003-3766; OPSEU Y. Minis1Iy ofCommnnity Safety and Correctional Services (Union Grievance) (Mikus) GSB#2002-2260; OPSEU Y_ Minis1Iy ofCommnnity Safety and Cmrectional Services (Sidhu) (Almunsly) GSB#I996-0717; OPSEU Y_ Minis1Iy ofSoIicitor GeneIal & Correctiooal Services (rone) (Dissanayake) GSOOI996-2693. [4] I have considered 1he arguments :from bo1h parties and have considered 1he jurisprudence provided I have attached 1he particulars relied upon for 1he disclosure request in full I have redacted 1he Employees' names :from that document fOl" rea.oums of privacy_ In geneml I find 1bat the Unioo.'s request is overly broad and 1hat 1he particulars are J~ in sufficiency. More -3- specifically, I accept the proposition that when a party is faced with allegations, it sboold expect to receive 1he am.wa to the questioo.s of "who" "wba:f' "when" "where" and"how"_ Only 1he "who" has been sufficiently identified in these particulars.. As an illusmdive eraR1ple, the reference to "inappropriate jokes" makes no reference to how 1he jokes were inappropriate or what 1hey were. The Employer is entitled to know 1he natme of1he Jokes" and how 1hey relate to the aIlega1ioo.s against 1he Grievor_ There is also IHJ infonnation as to how or when 1he Employer became aware of 1he exidence and transmissioo. of these jokes" _ _ This type of detail should be provided for all six-named individnaIs' alleged condnct Like Vice-Chair Briggs in 1he Disclosme Grievance I do IHJt intend to provide a detailed Older of what in my view would constitute sufficient particulars.. The parties are in a better positioo. to do so_ [5] Should 1he Union wish to pursue 1he matter it must provide 1he <<what" <<when" "where" and <<JJoW' fOl" each of1he six-named individuals regarding 1heir alleged conduct.. The particulars must be provided to the Employer priOl" to our next hearing date allowing enough time fOl" 1he Employer to investigate and responcl Dated at Toronto 1his 9"- day of August 2011.