HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-2699.Hyland.12-09-10 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#2009-2699, 2009-2700, 2009-2701, 2010-0572, 2010-0589, 2010-0590, 2010-0591, 2010-0592,
2010-0593
UNION#2009-0368-0161, 2009-0368-0162, 2009-0368-0163, 2009-0368-0202, 2010-0368-0018,
2010-0368-0019, 2010-0368-0020, 2010-0368-0021, 2010-0368-0022
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Hyland) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE Ken Petryshen Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION David Wright
Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
FOR THE EMPLOYER Kevin Dorgan, Felix Lau
Ministry of Government Services
Labour Practice Group
Counsel
HEARING September 7, 2012.
- 2 -
Decision
[1] This proceeding involves the hearing of grievances filed by Mr. B. Hyland in which
he essentially claims that the Employer has failed to properly accommodate his disability at the
Central East Correctional Centre. The Union has put in its evidence and the Employer is now in
the process of putting in its case. An issue has arisen about the admissibility of certain evidence
during the testimony of Mr. L. Mansley, a member of management. Union counsel wishes to put
two documents to Mr. Mansley during cross-examination and to ask him questions about the
incidents referred to in the documents. One of the documents is an Occurrence Report dated
March 12, 2011, prepared by CO Lacey. The other is an email from Mr. D. Davis to Mr. M.
Bunting dated September 16, 2011. Assuming Mr. Mansley’s responses to these questions,
Union counsel takes the position that the Union is entitled to call reply evidence to rebut aspects
of Mr. Mansley testimony. On various grounds, Employer counsel objects to the admission of
the documents and also argues that it would be improper for the Union to call the evidence
Union counsel indicated it intends to call in reply.
[2] Counsel made submissions on these evidentiary issues at a hearing on Friday,
August 7, 2012. Both counsel recognized that I have a discretion to admit the evidence at issue
but they had a different perspective as to how I should exercise that discretion in the
circumstances. Having reviewed the circumstances giving rise to this dispute and the
submissions of counsel, including the authorities they relied on to support their submissions, I
have decided to permit the Union to put the two documents at issue and the incidents referred to
therein to Mr. Mansley, subject to identification. If it elects to do so, I would also permit the
Union to call reply evidence as described by Union counsel. For clarity, I note that this ruling is
not a determination as to whether the evidence will have any relevance or how much weight, if
- 3 -
any, will be given to the evidence. Counsel, of course, will have the opportunity to make
submissions on these questions during final argument.
[3] The hearing of Mr. Hyland’s grievances will continue on Tuesday, September 11,
2012.
Dated at Toronto this 10th day of September 2012.
Ken Petryshen, Vice-Chair