The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1992-3483.Koonings&Froner.95-02-02I 3 ; *fg ONTARIO CROWN EMPiOYEES EMPLOYkS r)F 1 A C:OlIRONNF _ - _____ -. _-- .._...._ 37, DE L’ONTARIO . GRIEVANCE C~MMlkSlON DE. .I ’ SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT , BOARD. DES GRIEFS. : .I . .I - , .i , . . . : - -2 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ‘ONTARID. .MSG lb :,‘7’ L, x.-.,. ._ -- : ;. .’ 1. _ 1 1 ,,.-. ; I’ . . TELEPbfONEIT~L$PHONE: (476) 326-1388 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, EjUREAU2.100. Tc~~~O,~~O (ONTARIO). t&G tZ8 i ,’ ; -7.: FACSlM,L~~T~L~C~O~P/E :. .-(4 16) 326- 1396 ‘_ _ i . '. GSB '# ---34'83;/~:2,;'-3'48:4/~2, .3485/92;*.,3486/'92 ', :- . '- .. _: '/ " -"-- OLBEW#'-OLB449,/9i;;. OLB450/92,~:Olf;B010/93.,- OLB011/93 . : -<Y _~ ,-/ -- *: , '. IN-THE.:MATTER OFAN‘ARi3ITRATION ., a: - _:;-f ..' .- _I Under '.TtiE CLOWN EMPLO;Y$ES~.'COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT ._ ,- . . * ,. - ‘:. : . . - * 1’. ,B,ef,ore z-. .., ,_ _ -.,, ,- . . _ 5 -..: ., .;‘I ‘ : * -. va -'=-THE .GRXEVANCE :SETTLEMENT--BOARD:- .::. ', / . . - .I: . - \ BETWEEN -. .'r :..L;, 4. -:'. ,: ;.:':. .;. , -. OLBEU (Kopnings/Fron&) ., . ',.*. ': _,: . . je .<.A ; <-. . . -- $ 7 ( St -&$a;t _- - -... :- BEFORE: Vice-Chairberson .,. i : ..* JiL Carr\ithers ,. :- . . : . .gz;;.z; ._ ._ i _I M. Milich L: : _.. ._ _ .;- : '! . ;. I. - .-.- '__ :,~.- I . ..: :- FOR THE? -.: AA J;&oble . ~:. '. -':': :l-.:'j,. .a,': - '. 1-i.; ", . . . . - :: GRIEVOR Counsel .-- . . . Onca~io..Liquor Boards.‘$mp&ees .Union -+ . . .- .J 7 ,. -i '* ,- ___ .: 2 ;.. ‘;. ";'.. _- ; .. . . ,. .: -. _^ FOR THE V. Johnston . :EMPLOYER. 7; --- - Co~unsell::~' : Ij : .., a : ~-.,;.f ---. . -Hicks, Morley, Hamilton, Stewart, Storie _ . .,r; L. -.B&rristers & .-SqlicitoTs ..-. -:,T : .' I _,. HEARING . :.. : .’ ..__ _’ ‘. ;” “, October 26, 1995‘ November 9, 10, 22, 1295,,,.-. : / . _ .; -. -, ‘-I-._‘, _ -. .’ I .. . -‘.r”., ,, .: ..L - -’ ,- _ ..- c-, s - ; ; -?- ; 1 . *; t 8’ ~,.;DECISI~N . .* . i _ .. ,,: ;* ,‘...'_ ._ ,3. -I . . !C‘ ;; - ‘. . . : c .\’ .,..‘&. * : ., :: .' There .are four.grievances before-the Board in this‘matter;. ..,,, (' . . . -!_. y .- I_ . : <. '_:. r;(,, . . .: .: 7 ._ : fi'led- bn. b'ehalf of T; Koonings‘ ar;d K..‘- I;;roh~~-." ';..‘Th~~~ are I two. ,;F ,, : grievances dated:Dedember :15,:;1992.-and two-grievances dated January:13,,‘ X993. . . The:grievances;.claim~that Ms.:-Koonings and Ms. Froner have been subjedted::to harassment..and'discrimination, '_ C.. .\. : . ,' In the:course::of' Ms: Kodn'i~gs'..,:test~mdny:~ evidence was 'adduced relating to conversations between Ms. Koonings and another employee whichL took:.place:;in~.'front:~of?customers. Ms. Koonings testified that she was spoken.to in a demeaning manner:.. .. __;. I a'_ _. . . _. :_:. ,_ . .-_ - i .i ., _: . -; _, . 'CL' . .,. . It Gas-the Union's position that this conduct was an,.element 'of 7 1 :, ._- ‘1 1 I "the harassmentand discrimination experienced by Ms. Koonings. _, . . . . .j . -. .!. ;.. * ,, ; -.. _ _ . ; ,,% .: f <. _ The Union indicated':that-if.wished toadduce-evidence relating to : .- -,r; “-( -... 1 -similar conversations-,which'took place subsequent to the ' ._ . . : 1.-.. . I :....“- .c - ; . .- i‘ _i -. - : grievance. It was the:Union's positidn'thatthe Board should 'not, ./ . '.; ', '. .- ,_ .- *.. restrict'its considerations to whether there was a violation .of ., . the' Collective Agreement when the grievances-were ~4iled.b~t.:.,--:.'.~, .I. . .,.' i .<.' I_ _ I\ ::" *- _ I should also h&r "a~d"~~nSi~ef:whether subsequent :&e&s “ I constituted a violation or violations of the Collec.tive ., .-.- :. :.c:,:_ ,, Agreement. Counsel for the Employer objected to'the~introductibn _ -< r -. . . . 1 6: _ ', .::. y-, . * ., 1 - -.: ..,__ ._. . . .C' of such evidence. The Board upheldz.the. E'mployer~s objection. At the request of Ms. Noble the ruling of the Board in this regard .,; 2. .' TY.. : .r. is being prdvid@ in writing; :. - ” I ‘. ‘,:a’,. As the Board indicated in-.an earlier interim award .in this " ,. ., '. _ . . _., ,I-. '- I : . . / . : <i ._. a . “7: I matter, it is'the nature of the event, rather than-its timing, that determines relevance and thus admissibiiityi .However,.-the .- Collective Agreement contemplates complaints being deiined and- ,. crystallizedkn the course o,f the grievance' procedure. Accordingly, insofar as the subsequent events were put forward as separate allegations'of impropriety it was our view that'such evidence was beyond the scope of the particular allegations that crystallized at-the time-of the grievance and therefore should not be adjudicated by the.Board. While,. as the Board noted, there-may be -other contexts in which events occurring after the filing of. the grievance are relevant.to the allegations which gave rise'to the grievance and therefore properly admissible, the {appropriate scope of this matter is'limited to the allegations'in ,existence at the time the grievance arose. AccordingJy, in this context, the--Board upheld the Employer!s'.objection t,o the introduction o'f this evidence, L '_ I DATED at Torontol.'this 21st day of December, 1995.. Q.&L& ,- S.L. Stewart - Vice-Chair - Union Nominee EMPLOYiSOEL4 COURONNE ’ DE L’OIVTAR~O COMMISSION DE REGLEMENT ] DES GRIEFS \ ,>A-. _, wl / 180 DUNDAS &/q&+m-; , &llTE 2100, TORONTO ON M5G 128 TELEPHONEIT~LiPHONE : (416) 326- 1388 780, ROE~DASOU&‘I; BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ON) M5G lZ8 FACSlMlLElTiLkOPIE : A,- (416) 326-1396 GSB# 3483/92,3484/92,3485/92,3486[92 : OLBEU# 0LB449,50/92,0LB010,.11/93 IN TEE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under : ., THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT I Before .. THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT -BOARD BETWEEN OLBEU (Koon&ngs/Froner) - and - Grievor The Crown in Right of Ontario (Liquor Control Board of Ontario) : Employer / i: BEFORE: S. Stewart Vice-Chairperson .-\ !" W. Shipman , Member M. Milii=h Member i' FOR THE -. J. Noble / GRIEVOR Legal Counsel !' Ontario Liquor Boards , i Employees Union FOR THE D. I$ombourguette EMPLOYER Counsel \ ,Li.@or Control Board of Ontario HEARING November 10, 1994 ~-. J ./‘ CECISION '. The grievors, Ms. K. Froner and Ms. T. Koonin : -are cai$al 9"t, .. - ..employees of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. iioq T&T. - ~'I .,Froner and Ms _ _ __ . Koonings-filed two 'grievances dated December 15, I 1992 and January 13, 1993 alleging harassment and intimidation.' ', The Union provided notice.of these proceedings'to Mr. L. ,: 1 Grant, an employee whose conduct is at issue in.these grievances. Mr. Grant did not atkend nor was he represented at the hearing. ‘\ . . /’ \ At the'hearing, counsel made.opening,statements and' t requested rulings on.a'number of preliminary .issues between the' \ .A .: parties; The Board made oral rulings wit&respect to some of these-issues', I . \ To their credit,. counsel were able to resolve a number of.other issues; \ Argument was not completed until the .end' -of the day in relation to further issues and .accordingly, \ the ._ Board is providing its rulings with respect to these matters in \ .' writing.. \ ) " ,,\ One of the-remaining \ issues relates-to whether the.-Union ought 'to be precluded from adducing evidence with respect to _i..- \ certain actions of Mr. D. .Goulding, district manager,. \ thht took place subsequent to the filing of the grievances. \ We agree with Ms. Noble's submission that, it is the relevance of events rather \ ! than their timing;'that determines their admissibility. At this point'in the prdceeoings we are not prepared to rule that this 5. :. i’ ‘. I’ ;- 6: i - 2 evidence is irrelevant; We will, if and when called upon to do sot make a ruling with respect to this evidence in the course ,of the hearing, where this matter‘can be assessed in-context. .The Union has requested production of a memorandum dated.August.30, 1993 from Mr. Goulding to Ms. Sharma. The Employer's position is that as Mr. Goulding's actions subsequent to the filing of the grievances are not relevant, this memorandum is not relevant. The,test for production is arguable relevance. In our.view, this document is arguably relevant and therefore ought tobe produced to the Union.. As with the evidence relating to Mr. Goulding, its admissibility will be determined if and when the issue arises.. I We have reached a similar'conclusion with respect to the ,. Union's requests for documents relating to staff schedules for ' specifiid stores and the il sign in and sign out sheets" for those I stores for a specified 'period. Again, it is our view that this , request meets the test of lVarguable relevance" and therefore . these documents should be produced. We will,deal with their /J - admissibility -in the course of the hearing if and when the-issue arises. Ms., Noble advised that the Union wishes to adduce evidence regarding statements made at a grievance meeting. Mr. Mombourquette advised that the Employer objects to the ' introduction of.this evidence. 1.n general, communications - between parties at grievance meetings are inadmissible on the , 3: ; basis that the settlement objectives-of these meetings will be und^ermined if positions and statements may ,later be the subject of; evidence at arbitration. There may be an exception, such as when the issue is whether there was a settlement-reached at the, .meeting. Ms. Noble-urged the Board to determine that this /' evidence ought to be admitted or, in the alternative, 'reserve its decision on this issue and. deal with it-in the course'of the hearing. We are unable to,accept either position: The . circumstances relating to this issue have been clearly defined and it is appropriate to deal with it at this point. Inour view, there is no basis >for an exception to the rule prohibiting the introduction of such evidence. Accordingly, it is our ruling that this evidence will not be admitted. ' Subsequent to the referral of these.grievances to:'arbitration the Employer referred this matter to an internal investigator, Ms; J. De Pe.za. It is the position of the Union that the Employer has improperly failed to'provide the grievors with the conclusions of the investigator and has not acted in accordance . with the recommendations of the investigator. The Union has requested.production of the file relating to the investigation, including the conclusions of the report;, .Mr. Mombourquette I advised that the Employer was prepared to produce the documents requested with the exception o'f the opinions and conclusions. expressed by the investigator. He argued that the Employer's I response to conclusions of an internal investigator are beyond .' 4 the' scope of the grievances before us. We agree with this. submission. The Board will make its own independent findings on the basis of the evidence beforeit in relation to the I grievances. Evidence relating to the Employer's response,to the conclusions inrelation to an internal report obtained subsequent to the referral 'of these grievances to arbitration will not assist the Board. In our view, the assessment of an internal process which.took place subsequent to the referral-of this matter to arbitration is beyond the appropriate scope of these. proceedings and should not be undertaken here. Accordingly, we will not direct the production of the opinions and conclusions of the, investigator. ' '_ The continuation of the hearing in this .matter is to be scheduled by the Registrar in consultation with the parties. Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of Febrtiary, , 1993. S.L. Stewart - W. Shipman - Member I i” y2Jpui.y / N M. Milich - Member'