Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-0358.Grewal.88-12-16 %' ONTARtO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE ~ *" · · CROWN EMPL 0 YEE$ DE L 'ON TA RI 0 GRIEYANCE CQMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST. TORONTO, ONTARIO, M5G rES-SUtTE2~O0 TELEPHONE~/T£L~PHONE 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, TORONTO, (ONTARIO) M5G IZ8- BUREAU 2100 (416) 0358/88 · :~v.% IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT ~efore 'THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD :.~ Between: OFSEU (P. Grewal) Grievor - and- .:;:~;.;,-.-' 'The Crown in Right of Ontario '~"~:·:,~ (Ministry· of Correctional' Services) Emp l oye r Before: J.W. Samue]s Vice-Chairperson P. Klym Member E. Orsini Member For ~he Crievor: R.P. Stepbenson Counsel Gow]ing & Henderson Barristers & Solicitors Fo~ the Employer: M. Galway Staff Relations Officer Ministry of Correctional Services HEARING: December 1, 1988 The griever, who is a correctional officer, alleges that there were certain irregularities by management, in a job competition for 21,probation officers in Metro region, in which he was one of the 103 unsuccessful !,~? applicants. The competition °ccur~'ed in December 1987-January 1988. The Union now wants the c6rnpetition re-mn. At the outset of our hearing, Counsel for the Union said that he had requested certain documents from the Ministry in order to prepare his case, and.he had received nothing. A letter containing the gist of the griever's allegations had been sent to Ms. Galway as part of the Union's .-: request for the documents. This letter was introduced in evidence at our : hearing. It reads: Thank you for your correspondence of November 18th and 21st, 1988. This is to advise that the union intends to call as a witness in this matter Mr. Raj Gupta, who is a probation officer in the Islington Street office. Mr. Gupta will say that shortly after the competition'in dispute in this case he had with Mr. Bose' Sookdeosingh who was the area manager of the River Street probation office. Mr. $ookdeoeingh informed him a~ that time that he was on the way to a meeting of area managers.of the probation offices called by the Regional Manager. The meeting was called as there Were serious concerns about the results of the probation officer, competition, in particular, Mr. Sookdeosingh indicated that allegations were being ma~e about Mr. Gordon Doleman who was the area-manager of the Keels Street probation office. Mr. Sookdeosingh told Mr. Gupta that he understood that Mr. Doleman, who was o~ the interview panel for' the competition, had revealed the qxlestlons thag would be on the competition an~ to contract probation officers who we=ged in the Keels Street office, and had coached them on .the proper answers. In a~dit'ion, Mr. Gupta will say ~hat he had a discussion. with the area manager cf the Isling=on office, Mr. Allan Taylor, the nex~ day. Mr. Taylor info~med ~r. Gupta that the meeting cf ~he-area managers had been held the previous ~ay and that he was present. At the meeting it'ha~ been decided that the Employer was not going to make any changes in the results of competition because no one had grieved. Unless somebody grieved they would no~ make a~y changes and they 'were hoping.that no one would grieve. ~ I..trust-this ie satisfactory, .-It le my understanding =hag. Y~ will contacting the ineumbe~t8 as to the hearing on December 1st, 1988, an~ I am relying on you ~o do so. The Union· now wanted the Board to order the Ministry to produce the 'interview questions and answers of.the 2I successful candidates, the model questions and answers, and the resum6s of the successful candidates. This material would enabl.e, the Union to prepare its case that certain candidates were coached in the interview questions and answers, The Ministry argued that these documents were not relevant to the Union's allegation. The Board ruled that these documents were indeed most relevant and the Ministry ought to produce the documents forthwith. We adjourned until 2:00 PM to give the Ministry time to have the documents brought down to the hearing, and for Counsel for the Union to look them over. At 2:00 PM, we reconvened. The Union called Mr. R. Gupta as a witness. Mr. Gupta, who is a probation officer, a member of the bargaining unit, but not an officer of the Union, began to tell us what is related in the letter quoted above. He was going to tell us what he was told by Mr. Sookdeosingh who understood that there were certain allegations concerning Mr. Doleman. As well, he would tell us what Mr. Taylor said to him about the discusSions at the meeting of area-managers. The Ministry objected that his evidence was hearsay. The Union responded that it involved a party admission and was therefore admissible. The Board recessed to consider the Ministry's objection. Then we ruled that Mr. Gupta's evidence was inadmissible. His testimony concerning his conversation with Mr. Sookdeosingh would be the remotest of-hearsay. It was third or fourth-hand evidence concerning certain rumored allegations. And the evidence concerning the area managers' meeting would not only be hearsay, but even if admitted, would show no more than that management met to discuss ce,rtain concerns raised by the 4. staff, and by itself Would not be useful evidence whatsoever of any impropriety by management or any member of management. The only way we could accept Mr. Gupta'$ evidehce would be if the Union intended to substantiate this testimony with other evidence showing impropriety. We gave our ruling. The Union withdrew the grievance. This is the record of our proceedings and our rulings. Done at London, Ontario, this 16th day of Decomber ,1988. / ,.~k-W:.'~ueh,~Wice-Chairp e r s o n ,'---. P. Klym, Memb~ Member