HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-3165.Union.12-10-31 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#2009-3165
UNION#2010-0999-0008
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Union) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Government Services) Employer
BEFORE Susan L. Stewart Chair
FOR THE UNION Kate Hughes
Cavalluzzo Hayes Shilton McIntyre &
Cornish LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
Lorne Richmond
Counsel for AMAPCEO
Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
FOR THE EMPLOYER Benjamin Parry and Robert Fredericks
Ministry of Government Services
Legal Service Branch
Counsel
HEARING October 23, 2012.
- 2 -
Decision
[1] A hearing was convened following a request from OPSEU to have the
Board address an issue of disclosure of employment discipline
information. The events that precipitated this request for interim relief
involved a draft letter provided to an inspector indicating Crown
counsel’s intention to disclose information in connection with the
inspector’s termination from employment. The draft letter related to a
prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act alleging
contraventions of construction regulations and referred to the
information being disclosed to the defence pursuant to the Crown’s
obligations in R. v. McNeil. The inspector was involved in the
investigation and it is intended that he testify at trial. The draft did not
disclose that a grievance had been filed and was proceeding to
arbitration.
[2] Crown counsel solicited submissions from the inspector prior to the
letter being sent out, to be received by September 28, 2012. The
inspector did not receive the letter, as he was away from home, however
upon receipt of the letter he requested an extension of the deadline,
which was granted. By letter dated October 5, 2012, Ms. Hughes made
submissions to Crown counsel on behalf of the inspector. It was noted
in those submissions that a grievance had been filed and that the matter
was proceeding to arbitration. On behalf of the inspector it was
- 3 -
submitted that no disclosure letter should be sent on the basis that
McNeil does not address similar employment discipline and does not
oblige the Crown to disclose this kind of information, the disclosure
process set out by the GSB as endorsed by the Divisional Court does not
require the disclosure of employment discipline of that nature and that
the information was not relevant to the prosecution.
[3] The Employer advanced a number of preliminary arguments regarding
the Board’s ability to deal with the interim relief application. As well, the
Board heard argument on the merits of the interim relief application.
The Union’s request for interim relief, as it relates to this particular
matter, is that the Employer should be compelled to provide Crown
counsel with information regarding the fact that the discipline had been
challenged with the matter proceeding to hearing, with the Crown in turn
drafting another letter for the inspector’s review and submissions. I
agree with the Employer’s submission that the relief sought has in
essence been obtained, in that a full articulation of the inspector’s views,
including the fact that his discharge is proceeding to arbitration, has
been put before the Crown. Accordingly, aside from any issue of the
validity of the preliminary objections, it is my view that the Union’s
request for interim relief must be rejected on its merits.
- 4 -
[4] For the foregoing reasons the Union’s application is dismissed. I make
no ruling on any of the other arguments made before me.
Dated at Toronto this 31st
day of October 2012.
Susan L. Stewart, Chair