HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-1923.Eagles.14-10-29 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#2013-1923,2013-1924, 2013-2423, 2013-2424, 2013-2924, 2013-2925, 2013-2926,
2013-2927, 2013-2928, 2013-2929, 2013-2930, 2013-2931, 2013-2936, 2013-2937,
2013-2938, 2013-2939, 2013-2940, 2013-2941, 2013-3199, 2013-3200
UNION#2013-0202-0005, 2013-0202-0006, 2013-0202-0007, 2013-0202-0008,
2013-0154-0030, 2013-0154-0031, 2013-0202-0009, 2013-0202-0010, 2013-0202-0011,
2013-0202-0012, 2013-0202-0013, 2013-0202-0014, 2013-0340-0055, 2013-0340-0056,
2013-0340-0057, 2013-0340-0058, 2013-0599-0027, 2013-0599-0028, 2013-0154-0032,
2013-0154-0033
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Eagles) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Finance) Employer
BEFORE Ken Petryshen Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Lesley Gilchrist
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Omar Shahab
Treasury Board Secretariat
Legal Services Branch
Counsel
CONFERENCE CALL October 28, 2014
- 2 -
Decision
[1] I have before me a number of grievances filed by certain Inspectors employed by the
Ministry. The focus of the grievances is on a change made by the Employer in August 2013 to
its policy on the use of Ministry vehicles. The change required the Inspectors to keep the
Ministry vehicles at their headquarters, rather than at their home. The parties were unable to
resolve the grievances at mediation on May 5, 2014. They agreed that the grievances would be
heard together and that counsel would deal with the issues of particulars and disclosure prior to
the next hearing date. Employer counsel indicated that it was likely that the Employer would
take the position that the Union did not have a prima facie case for these grievances. A number
of hearing dates were scheduled, starting with November 5, 2014. This matter is being heard
pursuant to article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement.
[2] Union counsel provided Employer counsel with particulars of the grievances on
October 8, 2014. Employer counsel has taken the position that the grievances have not been
sufficiently particularized. The Union disagrees and wants the Employer to comply with its
request for disclosure. These issues were addressed during a conference call on October 28,
2014. Employer counsel confirmed during the conference call that the Employer intended to
take the position at the hearing that the Union has not made out a prima facie case of a Collective
Agreement violation. He provided a brief summary of the matters he would address when taking
this position.
[3] I have reviewed the submissions made by counsel during the conference call in light
of the circumstances in which they were made. I have reviewed the extensive particulars filed by
the Union and I have also considered the decisions relied on by counsel.
[4] Union counsel referred me to the following decisions: OPSEU (Sutherland) and
Ministry of Labour (2008), GSB No. 2006-0519 (Dissanayake); AMAPCEO v. Ontario (Ministry
of Economic Development and Trade)(Bokhari Grievance), [2011] O.G.S.B.A. No. 93
(Dissanayake); and, OPSEU (Union) and Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional
Services/Ministry of Children and Youth Services (2010), GSB Nos. 2012-1337 and 2009-0810
(Harris).
- 3 -
[5] Employer counsel drew my attention to the following decisions: OPSEU (Ross) and
Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services (2003), GSB Nos. 2690/96 et al.
(Herlich); OPSEU (Union) and Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (2004),
GSB No. 2002-2260 (Mikus); OPSEU (Union) and Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services (2006), GSB No. 2003-3766 (Briggs); OPSEU (Sidhu) and Ministry of
Community Safety and Correctional Services (2006), GSB Nos. 1996-0707 et al. (Abramsky);
and, OPSEU (Kaufman) and Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (2013),
GSB No. 2011-3942 (Watters).
[6] The relevant GSB decisions reflect that the main purpose of particulars is to provide
the responding party with sufficient information so it is informed of the case it has to meet. It is
evident from the particulars filed by the Union that the process of providing particulars required
a considerable amount of time and effort on the part of the grievors and Union counsel.
However, I agree with the Employer’s position that some of the facts alleged are not sufficiently
particularized. Without reiterating the paragraphs in the particulars that Employer counsel
identified as lacking in particularity, I simply direct the Union to provide adequate particulars
with respect to areas identified during the conference call.
[7] The other issue for determination is whether I should direct the Employer to comply
with the Union’s disclosure request when the Employer intends to make a non prima facie case
motion on the next hearing date. As the GSB decisions also indicate, the purpose of disclosure is
to allow a part y to prepare its case. This proceeding is not at the stage yet where each side is
preparing for the hearing on the merits. The Employer intends to argue in fact that the Union has
not made out a case of a Collective Agreement violation in its particulars. If there is merit in the
Employer’s motion, there will not be a hearing on the merits. With these considerations in mind,
I am not inclined in these circumstances to direct the Employer to comply with the Union’s
disclosure request at this stage of the proceeding.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 29th day of October 2014.
Ken Petryshen, Vice-Chair