HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-0755.Fabro.92-04-09 ONTARIO EMPL OY'"=$ DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO
GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSlON DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARO DES GRIEFS
tSO CJUNOA$ STREET' WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. M5G I.,-?.8 TE,~EPI'tDNE/TELEPWO,~E; (475] 336-'/388
180, RUE OUNDA$ OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO fONTARIO). MSG 1Z8 FAC$tMfLE/Tf~-'t._~COPIE : (416) 326-1396
755/89, 757/89, 1374/90
XH TKR I(~TTBR OF ]all ]~IBXT.RA~XOM
~IE. CaOl~i RK?LOYRB8 COLLBCTXFB BARGAXNXNG ACT
~e£oze
THE ~R~EV'ANCE 8ETTI,F,~,~ BO~.D
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Fabro)
Grievor
- Mid -
The Cro~n in Right oE Ontario
(.Hinistry oE Tndustry, Trade & .Technology)
B~ployer
BEFORB: J. Robe~cs Vice-Chairperson
E. Selmour Member
D. Clark Member
FOR TI~ A. Ryder
GRIEVOR Counsel
Ryder, Whitaker, wright & Chapman
Barristers & solicitors
FOR THE P. Rusak
RMPLOYER Counsel
Mathews; Dinsdale & Clark
Barristers & Solicitors
HB~RING March 20, 1992'
At the conclusion of the hearing on March 20, 1992, the
parties requested rulings from the Board upon the following
questions:
(1) Whether it was proper to permit the Union to delay for
the period of one month from March 20, 1992, its decision
to conclude its presentation of evidence; and,
(2} Whether the Ministry will be entitled to present in
evidence a compilation of reports prepared by a witness
for the Union, Mr. David Smith, and cross-examine upon
them.
Upon due consideration of the submissions of the parties, we
conclude that both issues should be answered in the affirmative.
The Union will be permitted the requested one month delay. The
Ministry will be entitled to present its compilation of the reports'
of Mr. Smith and cross-examine upon them, if it so chooses.
The latter ruling merits some comment. It seems that during
cross-examination of a witness for the Union, Mr. David Smith,
counsel for the Ministry attempted to introduce into evidence and
cross-examine upon a single report that Mr. Smith had made while
occupying the same position as the grievor. Counsel for the Union
objected tha~ a single report might be m£sleading and that if
counsel for the Ministry intended to pursue this line of
questioning, she should submit all such reports that Mr. Smith
completed within the relevant period of time.
The Board ruled that all such reports should go in. Counsel
2
for the Ministry did not have all of the reports in her possession,
and so the Board directed her to compile them and share them with
counsel for the Union for purposes of ensuring agreement upon thei~
completeness. Thercross-examination then continued upon other
matters, and ultimately was concluded'-- save for the documents in
question.
Pursuant to the direction of the Board, counsel for the
Ministry forwarded photocopies of the reports to counsel for the
Union. In subse.quent .correspondence, counsel for the Union
apparently agreed that the documents were complete~ however, he
indicate~ that he would object to the documents going into evidence
and Becoming the subject of cross-examina~iOn unless the Ministry
were to produce f~rther evidence.
Counsel for the. Ministry took exception to what seemed to be
an attempted attachment of additional riders to the prior ruling of
the Board. In her request for the present ruling, counsel insisted
that in accordance with our prior ruling she was entitled, without
more, to present and 'cross-examine upon the compilation of
documents in question.
We agree. The compilation may be presented in evidence and
Mr. Smith may be cross-examined thereupon. Of course, should
counsel for the Union conclude that further evidence on behalf of
the Union will be necessary in light of this presentation, Be will'
.
be free to make representations upon this question at the hearing.
DATED at London, Ontario, this ~ch da~ of April,
1992 ·
~R. J~R~eTts, Vice-Chairperson
E. seymour, Union Member
D. Clark, Employer Member