HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-0007.Amurao.12-03-09 DecisionCrown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB#2010-0007, 2010-0029
UNION#2010-0542-0010, 2010-0542-0009
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Amurao) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community and Social Services) Employer
BEFORE Joseph D. Carrier Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Sheila Riddell
Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
FOR THE EMPLOYER Jennifer Richards
Ministry of Government Services
Labour Practice Group
Counsel
CONFERENCE CALL February 10, 2012.
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The Grievance before me alleges that the Grievor, Ms. Fidela Amurao, who was
employed with the Family Responsibility Office of the Ministry of Community and Social
Services, was terminated without just cause.
[2] Counsel for the Employer brought forth the current motion with respect to two
preliminary issues:
1. disclosure
2. particulars
[3] The Vice Chair heard submissions from both Counsel regarding these issues by
teleconference on February 10, 2012.
Disclosure
[4] The Employer seeks certain documents it alleges are arguably relevant to the above-noted
arbitration hearing. By way of background, in a letter dated February 22, 2010, Ms. Nancy
Liston, Director of Client Services, outlined to Ms. Amurao the reasons for her dismissal. Those
reasons identified inappropriate conduct including the following:
You obtained a mortgage on December 23, 2008, knowingly used a falsified pay stub
indicating that you were an employee of Freedom Mortgage and Financial Solutions
earning $75,000 a year, created on your behalf at the request of your manager. This is a
violation of the Ministry Standards of Conduct (Standard #5: Lawful and honest
conduct).
[5] The Union takes the position that the Grievor was unaware of the existence of the
fraudulent pay stub in question. In light of the Union’s position, the Employer seeks disclosure
of any mortgage applications, along with any and all accompanying documents, and any
agreements of purchase and sale for all properties for which the Grievor was approved for a
mortgage between September 2008 and December 2008 including but not limited to for her
current residence of 31 Piggott Mews.
Decision re: Disclosure
[6] I have considered the submission of Counsel and am satisfied that the documents sought
by the Employer are not only relevant to the ultimate issue to be decided but also go to the heart
of that matter. Accordingly, the Employer’s request for a disclosure order is granted as follows:
the Grievor shall produce any mortgage applications, along with any and all accompanying
documents, and any agreements of purchase and sale for all properties for which the Grievor was
approved for a mortgage between September 2008 and December 2008 including but not limited
to for her current residence of 31 Piggott Mews.
[7] Given the upcoming hearing date of April 23, 2012, the Employer requests that the
disclosure be provided no later than March 23, 2012. The time line requested by the Employer is
- 3 -
appropriate in the circumstances. The Union shall provide the disclosure to the Employer no
later than March 23, 2012.
Particulars
[7] The Parties first appeared before me on August 3, 2011. In a decision dated August 11,
2011, I ordered the Union to provide particulars of the Employer conduct, if any, which is
alleged to have been discriminatory and/or in any way a violation of the collective agreement or
the Ontario Human Rights Code. Those particulars are to set out the who, what, where, when
and how the impugned employer conduct is alleged to have taken place. No date for delivery of
the said particulars to the Employer was provided in my order. If the parties were unable to
determine the time frame themselves, they could contact me to prescribe an appropriate deadline.
[8] Again, the Employer requests that the particulars be provided no later than March 23,
2012.
Decision re: Particulars
[9] The time line requested by the Employer is appropriate in the circumstances here.
Therefore, the Employer’s order is granted. The Union shall provide the particulars to the
Employer no later than March 23, 2012.
Dated at Toronto this 9th day of March 2012.
Joseph D. Carrier, Vice-Chair