HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-0472.Kerrigan.99-06-22EMPLOY& DE LA COURONNE
DE L’OKTARIO
COMMISSION DE
SElTLEMENT REGLEMENT
DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS S TREE-J WEST, SUITE 600, TORONTO ON h&G IZB TELEPHONEiTiLiPHONE : (416) 326 - 138%
180, RUE DUNDAS OUES r; BUR-U 800, TORONTO (ON) h&G IZB FACSIMILEITiL~COPIE : (416) 326-1396
GSB # 0472/98
OPSEU # 98B300
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Brennan Kerrigan)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Health)
Employer
BEFORE Richard M. Brown Vice Chair
FOR THE
GRIEVOR
Ronald Davis
Counsel
Koskie Minsky
Barristers & Soli$ors
FOR THE Fateh Salim
EMPLOYER Counsel, Legal Services Branch
4 Management Board Secretariat i
HEARING June 14, 1999
Brennan Kerrigan was employed as a Communications Operator 2 in
Mississauga under a series of unclassified contracts running from May 5,
1995 until October 19, 1997. The employer declined to renew his last
contract. The employer now contends the grievor was not given another
unclassified contract because his performance on the job had been
unsatisfactory. The union contests this explanation and claims Scott
Robinson, the manager in charge at Mississauga when the last contract
expired, discriminated against the grievor and acted in bad faith.
Counsel for the union seeks production of the following documents
relating to the performance of other unclassified communications operators
at Mississauga during the term of the grievor’s employment: (1)
performance reviews; (2) records of non-disciplinary counseling; and (3)
records of external complaints. Employer counsel contends such documents
should be produced only for the period after August of 1997, when Mr.
Robinson was manager.
I have decided to grant the union’s request for two reasons. First, the
employer has not restricted its case against the grievor to the period when
Scott Robinson was in charge. In contending the grievor’s job performance
was inadequate, the employer relies upon incidents which occurred before
Mr. Robinson’s tenure as manager. Moreover, the period encompassed by
the union’s request offers a more adequate basis for comparing the
performance of employees than does the much shorter period between
August and October of 1997, especiaHy since some unclassified employees
may have worked infrequently.
A
Richard M. Brown, Vice Chair
Ottawa
June 22, 1999