HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-0130.Jackson et al.91-06-19
·1 /'
i
I . .
'<-
'-J"'" ~ ...,.,
I -'~l-'-t:·:--:>: -
I 'I .. ... ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
""' CROWN EMPLOYEES DéL 'ONTARiO
-
.,
1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
.
.- --- SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
-
180 OUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2TOO, TORONTO, ONTARIO. M5G rZ8 TELEPHONEITÈLËPHONE: (416) 32S-IJBB
180, RUE DUNOAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO). M5G IZé/ FACSJMILEITÈLËCOPIE: (4161 326-1396
130/90
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
I caPE (Jackson et al)
I Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Housing)
Employer
BEFORE: M. Gorsky Vice-Chairperson
J. carruthers Member
A. Stapleton Member
FOR THE R. Carnovale
GRIEVeR National Representative
Canadian Union of Public Employees
Local 767
FOR THE C. Osborne
EMPLOYER Counsel
Fraser & Beatty
Barristers & Solicitors ~
HEARING October 5, 1990
March 8, 21, 1991
-
_.~_.- - -- - .~'. --
· .
'3 .J~
oW. - "
~
2
proceed to the next stage of the competition being in .the form·of
an interview.
At the opening of the hearing, we were informed by counsel
for the Employer of the memorandum to the representatives of the
parties, dated July 10, 1990, from O.B. Shime, Q . c·. , the
Chairperson of the Board, relating to the notice to be sent to
interested persons. We were also informed that in compliance with
the directive notice had been sent to the 20 remaining
incumbents. Initially, there were 22 incumbents, one of whom
died, one of whom left the position. Another applicant had been
offered the position but refused it.
,..
Notification of the hearing was not given to the BO
unsuccessful applicants who did not grieve. Counsel for the
Employer brought to our attention the case of Peake 78\77
(Adams); where the Board, at page two, adjourned the hearing
until proper and timely notice could be sent to the five
incumbents. Th¿ ~card did··~ot requlre that notice be sent to t.he
unsuccessful applicants who did not grieve. In the circumstancës
we find that timely notice has been sent to those persons who
were entitled to notice of the arbitratio~ proceedings because
the proceedings would test their right to continued enjo~ment of
the benefits of the pG~3iti\)n l The same cannot be said of th\:;
L¡nsuccr~ssful applicants who did not grieve and they are not
entitled to notice of the he3ring.
-- --.
· .
'1 ;.
'I
D E C .1 S ION
By a posting in the form of a memorandum, dated August 30,
1989, addressed to "M.T.H.A. i"Iaintenance Staff, C.O.P.E. Local
767, " from E. How, l'-lanager, Human Resources (Acting) , the
Employer advertised for applicants from the bargaining unit to
fill 50 positions in the Superintendent classification ln
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
At the foot of the memorandum, the following appears:
ALL QUALIFIED MEMBERS OF THE BARGAINING UNIT ARE INVITED TO
APPLY BY COMPLETING APPLICATION NO. 406 WHICH IS AVAILABLE
IN THE PROJECT OFFICE, AND SENDING TO:
Metro Toronto Housing Authority
Human Resources Section
1320 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M4T 2W4
ALL APPLICATIONS MUST SHOW QUALIFICATIONS AS WELL AS POSTING
BEING APPLIED FOR AND MUST BE RECEIVED NO LATER THAN
September 14, 1989.
It was acknowledged that the Employer subsequently amend2d
.....
the date by which completed applications must be received to
_T '..:..:':-
September 20, 1989, and that the Employer allowed a grace period
of one further day for applications to be received. There ~vere
approximately 120 employees from the approximately 700 members of
the bargaining unit who applied for the position. After the
Employer, through its Human Resources Department, had pre-
screened the applications there were approximately 90 applicants
~ho proceeded to the next stage of the competition which was In
~
the form of a written test. A threshold score of 6 0 So \..,0 a s
established by the Employer in order to permit an applicant to
· ;
~!; ~ã:'
"
3
In a letter of September 28, 1990 (Exhibit 6) J counsel for
the Employer wrote to counsel for the Union statin'] that sh;~ h.Ôl.d
been informed that notice of the hearing had been served cn aLl
of the applicants for the competition including the incumbents In
the positions and that it was "on the strength of [this]
assurance, " that no further notices would be served ,j on the same
individuals." We now understand that notice was only served on·
the incumbents, as noted above. As above noted, these were the
only persons entitled to notice and to participate in the hearing
because they were the only ones with an interest to protect.
After counsel had made representation with respect to the
above matter they indicated that they wished the Board to deal
next with the cases of two of the Grievors, Larry Blackstock and
Joe Martins. Mr. Blackstock's application was considered to have
been out of time because it was not receiv-ed by the Human
Resources Department of the Employer at its Head Office located
at 1320 Yonge Street in Toronto before September 21, 1989. Ylr.
Martins' application was not considered further when he was
I., treated as being unavailable for the interview portion of the
,
competition after having passed the initial screenlng as well as
the written test. In the cases of the latter employees, the
Union asked that they be permitted t.o be properly assessed by t.he
EmploY2r along with the other Grievors who claimed to b(l entitlr::-d
to b.~ appointed to the posted position.
-.
. .
~ ;~~
.
4
Grievance of Joe Martins
i1r. Martins was at all material times classified as a
Labourer. After filing an applica~ion for thp- posted position h~
was invited to and did write and successfully complete the
written test referred to. Mr. Martins testified that after he
completed the written test he did not receive any further
information concerning his applicat~on and did not· receive any
notice concerning the interview stage of the competition.
Mr. Martins was away from his home on vacation and on his
honeymoon in Hawaii from October 16, 1989 until October 31, 1989.
He returned to his home on October 31, 1989, and he returned to
work on Monday November 6, 1989. He testified that when he
returned home on October 31, 1989, he received a message from his
mother in the form of a telephone number from a person located at
the Head Office of the Employer, whose name he could not
remember~ The message was said to be about the interview portion
of the competition.
_d
Mr. Martins stated that in response to the noted message he
placed a telephone call to Head Office on October 31, 1989, but
he could not remember the name of the person he spoke to. He did
remember, however, ihat the person with whom he spoke told him
that it ~,as then too late to be in tervie'..¡ed £0 r the position and
the! t his application c6uld not be considered further.
- ---~--~ .
. '
,¡" .~ I
I I
5
Mr. Martins testified that: prior to leaving on his honeymoon
he had filled in a request for vacation time and had then call¿:d
f-Ie3.d. Offic~~ a \,,;eek before his hone:1-moon ~'W·as scrll=:duled to
commence. He recalled that this telephone call had taken place
some time between October 9 ·and 16, 1989, but he could not
remember the name of the person he spoke to except that it was
the same person .that he later spoke to upon returning from his
honeymoon, who had informed him that it was then too late for his
interview to take place.
Mr. Martins further testified that he first heard that the
applicants who had successfully completed the written test were
granted interviews after he returned to work fõllowing his
honeymoon.
In cross-examination, Mr. Martins stated that the person" to
whom he spoke at the time he indicat-ed that he was going to be
av.¡ay on his honeymoon told him that the interviews were not
likely going to take place until after the expiry his vacation.
when asked how he had obtained a telephone number and-the name of
. . '~
a person to call to inform the Employer that he was going to be
away on his honeymoon, ~Ir . Martins stated that he believed that
he obtained them from the posting. An examination of the posting
(Exhibit IS) clc':=s net show any teleFhone number, and the ¡?erson
-
whose n~me appears lS tbat of E. How the Acting Manager, H'J.man
Resources with whom the Grievor had not spoken.
,..
.
.f· ':i.'
.,.
6
Mr. Martine also stated ~n, cross-examination, that after
speaking to the representative of the Employer upon his return
from his honeymoon, he communicated with a mor2 sen~::;r
representative of the Employer, whose name he also could not
remember, and had indicated to her that he had requested an
interview from an employee in the Human Resources Department and
had been informed that the interviews had been completed prior to
his return from his vacation.
It was Mr. Martins' position that if he had been made aware
that the interviews would be held during his absence, he would
not have left the country on his honeymoon.
.
Margereth Lobo, a Human Resources Advisor for the Employer,
testified on its behalf. Ms. Lobo stated that she was the Co-
. -- ~
ordinator of Process \\d"Jose responsibilities included the setting
of timetab1es for the oral inte rvie\'Ýs to be conducted 1n
connection with the competitlon with which we are concerned. In
this case the oral intervie'fIIs '."ere scheduled to take place on
November 1 , ') and 3, 1989, with the interviews to be conducted
..
by three separate panels. Ms. Lobo stated that the interviews
were held on consecutive days because of the need to maintain the
integrity .~ f' the process by . . that the na tur.'~ of th:=
, .~ .L ~nsur~ng
intelLview qlJ2Sri~ns \\I:) l~ 1 d be less likely t,~ b{~c()m(? kno·.vn . c; 1-, .:>
L' "- !. ~ '-
,-..1- ~..;... a.';'l th,::.t where a number of c~ays intervened betl~een i n ~ (-3 r \'r i e f.\: S
.':Þ L.~ 1-....... ,~....
there was ? greater possibility of interview questions being
-~----- ----- -
I'- .~
t·J~ ,~
'.
7
passed from those candidates who had already been interview'ed to
those who ~vere a'.va i t i ng an intervie~..¡. She stated that the
Grievor had been scheduled to be interviewed :Jovember ~ 198'),
on .5,
and that she was one of the members of the panel who would have
interviewed him.
Ms. Lobo testified that it was the responsibility of the
Human Resources Department Support Clerks to communicate with all
applicants who had· passed the written test to advise them that
.
they were scheduled for an oral interview and they were, at that
time, informed· of the time and place of the interview.
Ms. Lobò further testified that she had received a telephone
call from Mr. Martins on November .7 , 1989, at which time he told
her that when he returned from his honeymoon he'discovered that
the interviews had already been held and he \oJÍ 5 hed to know
~w)ìcther an interview could now be scheduled for him. She
.. info rmeL~ Mr. :VIa rt ins that ~.¡ hi I e she was sympathetic to h'is
di 1 emma she was not In a position to accommodate his situation
for a number of reasons including the fact that with the'
completion of the interviews there was nc certainty that the
information concernlng the questions asked could be protected.
She also informed him tha.t with the large number of persons being
interview'eel there W21-e 1 i ;Tli~s as t,~ the acccmmc:da t ion \-w' hie 11 th,~
.~
Emr...lG~.-er c::Jtl1d make In individual" cases.
·
.[ fj~ .
..
8
Ms. Lebo testified that she had no recollection of h.3.'Jing, l
spoken to the Grievor prier t,~ his leaving on his honeymoon. ncr
'J
cn October 31, 1989. She stated that she keeps notes cn all
matters of importance with respect to telephone calls in which
she 15 involved. She had no notes covering any phone calls
between herself and the Grievor on the latter two occaSlons.
Vincent Raso, a Shop Steward for the Union in District 4 ,
testified that he spokè to Mr. Martins on November 7 , 1989, 1n
during a telephone conversation and then met personally with him
on November 8, 1989. The Grievor informed Mr. Rasa that the
person he had spoken to concerning his difficulties was Ms. Lobo.
After Mr. Raso had spoken to the Grievor, he then spoke to Ms.
Lobo on November 9, 1989 and reviewed the Grievor's situation
with her. She informed him that she had spoken to the Grievor
and had told him that it was nct possible for his case to be
accommodated because there were too many individuals involved In
the competition to make this feasible.
Ms. Lobo stated that she had spoken to Mr. Raso a day or two
after she had spoken to the Grievor on November 7, 1989.
?-Is. Lobe stated that she sat on one of the panels along with
~'!. !V1ct'-]ut. f a Senior Maintenance Supervisor and \vi t h Guy Thcrne a
D2~Uty ~aintenance Manager. Their Fanel ,vas scheduled to ::1..=:3. 1
with the case of the Grievor and would have interviewEd. him in
.. ,
- -----~-,- -_.
·
."ï': .J
.~
9
the normal course of events.
,
The decision as +-..., which of the ca.ndidates \.,¡ou 1 d be the
c..'~
successful ones was made at a wrap-up meeting made-up of the nlne
members of the three panels, being the hiring committee. Scoring-
was collated and presented formally at the wrap-up meeting which
took place around November 17, 1989.
Each panel had interviewed S1-X or seven applicants per day
and over the course of the three days set aside for the
interviews between 15 and 18 candidates would be interviewed by a
panel.
At the time when the interviews were conductedr rough
scorlng was made but the final scorlng was only known at the
\vrap-up meeting \.,¡hen all of the scores were collated.
t'ls . Lobo was of the Vlew that it would have been unfair to
the other candida te~s to use the same interview questions on a
make-up interview that might be granted to a candidate such as
the Grievor. In additionr she testified that there- we·re problems
of availability of panel members. Her experlence was that it
could take between two and three weeks to set-up another panel to
i 11 t e l~V' i·~~.'\rv :VIr. :VL::l1'tins. c:, \, '-, was ,-,¡: the further V 18\,,' that the
... :.1 c. ~"I J...
ur:.i£c::::·m i n t e r Y;.l i 2 ~v~ situa.tion created for the candidates durin'j t~, .;>
ii'......
three ¡J,)ys set aside for the interviews could not be replicat2d.
.
;Ji~ ic?
'I'
10
She considered that it would be unfair to those candidates who
had already been intervie',.¡ed if the accomodation requestf~(l h,. th-~
J.)~
". . .~~
Grievor was granted. ~1s . Lobo was a15;) of the -r:"i~le\.v that u..slng
new questions which were different from those asked during the
three days of interviews would create difficulties and would
result 10 a different interview process as well a's a different
interview. Ms. Lobo was also concerned about the difficulties
that would be:encountered 10 co-ordinating the time schedules of
the panelists because of the fact that there were insufficient
staff available In Human Resources and In Districts 1 and ') to
ensure adequate co-ordination of time schedules.
Ms. Lobo testified that a decision was made to reduce the
number of a vai.1..able positions from 50 to 23 and 23 offers were
sent to the successful candidates during the second and third
weeks of December 1989. The committee decided on a 60t pass
threshold for the interview and this resulted In the decision to
reduce the number of available positions.
Ms. Lobo was not certain whether the hiring committee had
been made aware of the Grievor's request. She stated that she
spoke to M.s. How about the possibility of granting the Grievor an
inte rv ie\.¡ and a decision WilS made to maintain ~s. Lobo's earlier
(l/?~ision, ~!5 . Lebe stated thctt In c '.:~ :l. s i ;::t~ r i n (J <-¡..". (:;rir~-,,-ol'" 1 s"
I_l~'~
rCClt~.t=:s t I S l~ .', a:ì.:l ~ls. HOh ::-.:anc 1 Llí~,?d that the (::;::: i. ~~~ \,. C r has 2 \..... a r~ e ~,+-
. ~ .:...:. ..~ L
th.=: fact that he ""·as to t)i~ i n te~ rT..I i ~=~ved cn 2'JGvember ') 1ge9, ,:ìOcl .
-' F
-- ~-- ,-~ - ---
.
i-· i?
'. .
11
"vas also aware of the time and l?laes of the interview. This
in£ürmat ion \v,~s obtðined from the Human R2SQurc:es SupPOt-t Cler1<.,
Ms. ehan Vereen. M~' Lobo stated that when a candidate ¡vas .-..,-.,;-
:. ~. ~ l~.... "_
available when called about t'he scheduling of an interview, a
message would be left confirming the fact of the interview as
well as the time and place where it would be conducted along with
a telephone number for the applicant to ca 11.
Ms. Lobo st?ted that it was the practice of Support Clerks
to keep a written record of the number of calls that they made
and the information conveyed.
Exhibit 138 1S a memorandum, dated November 7, 1989,
prepared by M.s. Lobo after receiving the telephone call, above
referred to, from the Grievor. It states that the Grievor:
called saYlng he ..·¡as on his honeymoon last week. Did not :;e-t
message till return Nov. r: 89.
,.> .
M.issed his in~~rview· Nov. ") 89. Ç\lanted a.nother. Told him ..,e
-' ,
couldn't schedule.
There t3.re certain notes at the bottom of the pa.ge which ..vere made
after Ms. Lobo had spoken to the Grievor which were based on a
conversation she had with the Support Clerk, Chan Veeren. :--15.
Lobo informed the Griever of the reasons why an inte nriew could
n:;t t-,a re-schec1uled which 'were In conformitv with tho's2 j;l b c \- e·
"-"~
s ~~ t, - -:; ~..: t. . .
. .
:-1:; . Ch3.n Veeren, has been emr::doy,:d by the Employer .¡: ~.- f01Je
.l. '...' L
.
·
¿:¡-. ..,
.,
12
years as a Fluman Resources Support Clerk. In her capacity as an·
assistant to Human Resources Advisors, she lS respcnsibl,~ -t:..-. ...
..L ~_. ..L
communicating with app 1 i::a nts . - ~, schedule times, plz;¡ces ..Jnd dates
L..-'_.l
for tests and interviews.
Ms. Veeren testified that she spoke with the Grievo"r
approximately one and one-half weeks before he left on his
honeymoon. At that time she spoke to him about setting up a time
for his interview. The Grievor informed her that he would be
gOlng on his honeymoon when the interviews were to be scheduled
and she asked him to reconsider if he wished to be interviewed
for the position. She stated that the date for his interview was
given to the Grievor at that time and he agreed to get back to
her to confirm whether he would be able to make it. tolJhen he did
not, she called him at his home and informed him thàt she
i"equired an answer from him as to his intentions. She stated
that she went over the following information with Mr. :--la it ins:
the date, time and location of the interview. Ms. Veeren,
incorrectly, believed that the Grievor was go 109 to his cottage
in Ontario for his honeymoon and asked him whether he could come
~n for the interview. He lS supposed to have replied that he
wished to have his name left on the list and he would endeavour
>-,.., attend the interview. ,'\ccordingly, Ms. Veeren left the
'-- ~....
(.; r ie\.:"~-: r ~ s na.me :>n the list ~) f t.hose ts be irl t e r"t.] i,~r....¡ed on :: ~)l:..~ :~[nb ~ r
) 1989. Hs. Veeren denied that she had left sub s eCII.l'~;' t
-' , Cl
message for the Grievor with his mother or anyone e152 ~ ,f'" the
u~
\
I -. --~~ -- -----
~J;' i.:
"
13
Griever had testified.
::1ike Suhooos, who was a District :1¿ti ntena nee 1"1anage .r fc r t hi?
Employerat all material times and one of the n~ne persons
comprising the selection ·committee, testified that the members of
the committee met prior to the posting of the competition and, lD
the course of their discussions, considered what would be done in
the event that a candidate was unable to attend an interview. He
testified that the committee established a policy not to make
other arrangements for interviews pµtside of the designated times
established on November 1, '? and 3, 1989. The reasons for the
- ,
policy, as testified to by Mr. Suhonos, were the same as those
given by Ms. Lobo. He also indicated that he had been present
when previous interviews were discussed by bargaining unit
employees and noted a number of examples where employees in the
field had discussed interview questions following the holding of
interviews. In cross-examination, Mr. Suhonos indicated his
ê:oncern about perceptions of unfairness should one employee be
'J i ven the opportunity to be interviewed after the other
candidates had completed their interviews.
In considering the evidence, although there was some
l~n::":r=rtainty r,~ the part of Mr. ~lartins, Ms. Lobo and Ms. Veeren,
.......LL
~~~ .~ .r t '::t i ~l F -..-.,...... row ,~i r:~ C1231' t" ~ -, r, \c. the Gri;~v'-::r r s t,~st ,,;a s ....... r'.....
..l.. a'~ '_-.=l '.-, l.A,~ . .- " I L'.' l_
:::-; ~: b (~ ;} u 1 ~-,:"\ ~~l ',Jnt i 1 \'o\"emJ:-~2 L" 1989/ it lS unlikely that be ' ~
.~ , ...L...:')
correct hlhl~n h<= said. that he spoke to someone representing the
;
,
,. -'"
.,
I
14
Human Resources Department on returning home from his honeymoon
on October 31,1989, This ' ~, because he said that clur ing thz-i t
~~
conversation he was told that his interview date had already
passed. . It ~s more likely thåt the Grievor did not speak to Ms.
Veeren u..n:til November 7 r 1989, after he had returned to work from
his honeymoon. . The Grievor says that he had a number to call and
that he was aware of the fact that a message was left for him in
his absence. From his evidence, he could have called on October
31, 1989if h~ had chosen to do so, and if he had dcne so, would
......".,
have been reminded, or at least apprised, of the fact thãthis
interview was scheduled for November 3, 1989 and, accordingly, he
could have attended it.
On all of the evidence we are satisfied that Ms. Veeren had
spoken to the Griever prior to his leaving on his honeymoon and
that he was aware, at the, very least, that he should communicate
with the Human Resources Department as soon as 11e returned home
ori October 31, 1989. vol e find that his failure to atte~d the
interview scheduled for him was not a ·result of a. ny' fault of the
Employer's representatives and that the difficulty faced by Mr.
Martins could have been avoided if he had taken reasonable steps
to call the Human Resources Department upon his return from his
honevmoon on October ')1 1989.
-'...- f
What2~er 22commodaticn might be required of ar, t:mp 1 ';yer in
,.
the case of an employee who, throùgh no fault of his own, missed
--- ------ - -~
.
.'.i, ~,
'I
15
an interview appointment, no consideration need be given by the
Employer to an employee on the fa:::ts ~)f this case. The situatior..
that thc::' Grie~/or found !Ümse 1 f 1n was larg21~{ ~ res1..l1 t cf 11 i ~; .:) ~'I¡ n
,:J.
failure to do that which was rè-asonable In the circumstances;
call the Human Resources Department immediately upon, his return
from his honeymoon.
In the case of E'ernandes 212/87 (Wilson), the Board
concluded at p.12:
. . . The grievor's inability to attend. an interview was the
result of his own circumstances which [the representati ',;;= of
the employer 1 had made an honest effert to meet. Applying an
objective test, I do not find that the Ministry was required
to do more. A judgment had to be made about gOlng ahead. It
was not an unreasonable decision . . . . A balance between the
needs of the competition itself and the situations of the
individua.l candidates has to be struck. On these facts the
decision taken not to postpone was justifiable. -
On the facts of the case before us, employing an otjE.'ctive
test, ....ve find that the decision of the Employer not to glve the
Griever a make-up i nte c,-ie',,¡ was justifiable and his grle':-a.nc~
must therefore fail.
-
Grievance of Larry Blackstock
,
~lr . Blackstock, who 1.s a Serviceman General ,vith the
EmploY2~, , an a¡::lJ? llC,::"t ion for the pt)sted I?OSl.tl~)n to \..... ':":\
~ ,31,~lS e CL 3.-.' ,._
d ;.?; I 1. '".- ~,~ t" ~.:\ d 1-.,.- l.....:. r-. hif:" l~ t ¿'FF~-C:': im':i t':è 1 y ~:2[) r·~ ~ l'n .. C)rì. S:-~F:t .'--:mt;c" ~ ')')
,- , .., .L.':l _'0.' t
19_;~: 9 , ... - .... 'k <::. p:-oject ~+=f;~~ ,~'h'ë:re h·e tv'::~ t- 1(2::1 at 1 r: i 1- T~/~~ 11 2}:
l- ._~ '--1 L'_ '-...-' L __ ..:.. ~~ _
Ccurt, S ~:: c'l r bc~ rClug h , Ontario, after finit obtalning a job
.
.,. I.,
.
16
application from that office. Mr. Blackstock testified that '.",hen·
the application was de 1 i \'''ered t:-.J th2 project office by his 'v i £ e ,
he remained . 1· automobile outside that officê~ H"" also
~ n ,) l S
stated that he had previously applied for other positions by
delivering applications to the same project office and had relied
on the inter-office mail system to effect delivery to Head
Office.
On October 4, 1989, Mr. Blackstock became aware that a
number of employees who had also applied for the po~ted position
had received notice to attend and write the test which had to be
.
passed in order to move to the interview phase of the
competition. He then·placed a telephone call to an employee at
Head Office, who he knew only as "Lena" and asked her why he was
not on the list of applicants who could write the test. ~"hen he
could not obtain a satisfactory answer, he called Ms. Clare
:-lo:vl i 11 an, the District Housing Manager, District '1 and advised
- ,
her that he had be~n prevented from writing the test. Ms.
:1cMillan IS said to have advised him to attend at the s· i t e hi her e
the test was to be written and that she would arrange for him to
be able to write it. Mr. Blackstock attended at the,test site on
October 5, 1989 at 8:30 a.m. and spoke to Mr. Suhonos and to
Fr.3.nk Jelley, .:;. no t he r Senior Mainten.3.nce Supervisor who was also
~::' n th~ C(~rllpetitic)n committce, ~3_ n (] informed tl1f::~m of what Ms.
"!c~'li 1 bn had told him. :VI r . Suho nos t DId ~'l r . Blackstc~:'k th2it l.....2
,,¡ould not be permitted to write the test because thc~ ~~(= \v"a S a.
. -~-----...- - - ~-,
¡:
,. ~,
'I
17
"strict orde r " nct to permit a person whose name was not on the
list t ~~ '." l' it 2 it. ~lr . Blackstock then placed a telephcoe c:i.ll L. '.'
Ms. Mc~i 1 L::tn who then spoke ',vi th Mr. Suhonos. In the reslll t. r \,.r\··
.:..ll. .
Blackstock was permitted to write the test, his answer sheet was
placed in a sealed envelope, and he was told by Mr. Suhonos that
its being marked depended on a further decision being made.
,
After he wrote the test, Mr. Blackstock attempted, ever a
period of several days, to communicate with Ms. How in order to
find out his status as a candidate. His initial attempts to
reach her were unsuccessful. When he " reached her on October 11,
1989, he was informed that as no application had ever been .
received from him by the closing date of the competition, and
that, in fact, no application had been received from him to that
date, his test could not be marked and that that was the end of
the matter as far as she was concerned.
t-'lr. Blackstock stated his position to Ms. How, which he
ma.intained throughout the hearing, that his application was, l-'
I'
fact, filed on September 20, 1989, which was within the' time
.
limit, and that he was, accordingly, entitled to write the tes~
and to have it marked.
I t \~a.s ·:l~ L B l,}.:::kst:JC k r s irrq~:c(~SS ion that ~ts . H~)'~",¡ 2 nd\~a \+c u r i~cl
tc -:~ (;. r1 f i. r!n his r,,',: i dence about the d81iver~ of the a f);::;! icat i:?n (;n
Sept :?rnber :;0, 1989, by communicating with clerks tv·ho tv·e; rked In
,--- -
,
.
.~ &.,
·1
18
the Human Resources Department at Head Office.
Tt- ~VI)S the evidence .-..F .'\.-1_ Blackstock and his wife that h(~
-'-~ ~-' J... ~ .I.L. .
had been released from hospital on September 20, 1989 and that
his wife was present when he completed the application which both
of them reviewed before it was placed in an envelope.
It wa.s Mr. Blackstock's further evidence, based on his
previous experience, that the filing of an application at a
project office by the closing date of a competition was accepted
by the Employer as if the filing had been made at the Head Office
with the Human Resources Department. His reasoning was that if
-;
the application form could be obtained at the project office,
then the completed application could be filed there as well
provided that this was done prior to the closing date of the
competition.
As noted above, it was ':-!r. Blackstock's evidenc2 that his
application was delivered by his wife to the ploject office at
approximately 2:30 p.m. on September 20, 1989. He acknowledged
that the inter-office mail was picked up from the project office
cnly once a day for delivery to the District Office, ancl", after
sc~rtingr was delivered from the~c tu Head Offic0, and. he stat~lcl
I-l......... -I- h:~ did nc~ t ~, n ;.) \....' \\f h 3. t t-> t h;"! ma i I pick-up £r:Jffi the E¡r-¡Jject
,_" 1 ~ -:.;L I~ ,-lme
cffice llst¡,J,ll \- ::)ccured ~ He also stated U".,:¡,t there ~'rier(~ scm,2 c.lays
t.,:hen there ',.' a s no inter-office mail delivery and that the
n ~.
.
. .
'I
19 ..
detivery time fer mail frem the project office to Head Office wa~
u~certain and could take anywhere from two davs to/in rare c~ses!
:3èveral months.
In cross-examination, Mr. Blackstock testified that the
application was completed by him ·while he was 1n the hospital on
September 17, 1989. It was then placed in an unsealed envelope
and glven to his wife along with another envelope containing a
letter from the hospital to the Property Manager. When he gave
the envelopes to his wife he told her to deliver them to
"Dorothy" a clerk at the project office.
Dorothy Mason, a Support Clerk employed at District 2 at the
project office at 1 Fir Valley· Ct., testified under subpoena.
She described her duties as a Support Clerk as being a front-line
position and said that she handled incòming phone calls, m~t ,~ith
clients, tenants and others, served as a receptionist and
received and distributed mail. It was her responsibility co sort
the mail for delivery to the different offices such as the
District Offices and the Head Office and to place the mail in the
appropriate bag f6r fDrwarding.
.As soon as she rece1ves mail she makes certain that it is
[!r:~?2rly j~lddress2:i~ The hags cf Œ13il are f~lcked up f8r :i:~li~-!~r~·
~::~ th2 Distri~:t ()E£i[~2. At th2 Oistri::t Office th2 mail lS
¡·outed to its final destinQti.8ns iJ1cluding Head Office. A Scnicr
·
I ~, ... '"
20
Groundsman picks up the mail fer delivery to the District O£fice~
Yls . :Vla SC:1 t.::~st if ied the then? ' ~ cne pick-up a day and it lS
~'"
usually occurs between 10:30 f3.,..m. and 12:30 F·m.
Ms. Mason stated that she knew the Grievor's wife as a
result of a previous introduction and on the basis of her having
picked up the GrievorTs pay cheque on three occasions while he
was in the hospital. She recalled receiving two envelopes, at
about 12:30 p. m. , from the Grievor's wife both of which were,
regular sized wh~te envelopes. One was addressed to the Senior
I
Property Manager at 1 Fir Valley Court and the other to the
M .·T . H . A . Human Resources Personnel Section at Head Office. Ms.
Mason stated that she put the first .envelope in the ·mail box for
the Senior Property Manager at 1 Fir Valley Court and placed the
second envelope in the mail bag for ultimate delivery to Head'
Office.
I ..
I Ms. Mason further testified that the mail was picked. up
I before lunch time on September 20, 1989 and she \~as quite certain
I about this. We are satisfied that the Grievor's recollection of
the time when the envelopes were delivered to Ms. Mason is mere
I
likely correct, and that the envelope addressed to Head Offic2
w()Uld not have been picked-up on September 20th as the mail har]
.:1 1 t" c_~ .3. :-1""'-l left by th(·~ time the Gri2\l~)r ~ s \áf:~ had ::1::= 1 i v ;" l- ¡~ ::1 lC r'"
."'--
\ls. ::>1ascn.
- ~--------------~-- I
:
. ."
"f
21
M.s. .:"1,] son also testified that on rare occasions certain mail
(time:::ards and. lists) ¡vas treated as h a '..- i n 9 3- E:Jri8.t:ity E ,-. " r 1, '"
,~ ...
purp:)se 0 f del i'v·ery. She a 1 s:~ stated that r' r. 1- ::òC e 1. f't s i.'iere -j l \~ \:; n
'v
for mail and that she never stamped envelopes presented to her.
We are satisfied that the mail which was given priority for
delivery would not include applications in response to job
postings.
~-, ';"
Mrs. Wendy Blackstock, the wife of the Grievor, testified
that she. delivered the application for the posted position
. ~·.r· .
completed by her husband to Ms. Mason along with the other letter
I referred to "after lunch" on September 20, 1989. She testified
that she advised Ms. Mason that it was essential that the
I application be received at the Human Resources Department at Head
I Office by September 20, 1989, and that the application was
addressed, and that the envelope containing the ð l? l? 1 i cat ion ¡..¡ a s
stamped by :VIs. Mason al thowjh no receipt ¡.¡as issued. Although
there was some difference betwen tbe evidence of ~rs. Blùcksto~::k
and Hs. Mason in this regard, it does not affect cur finding th~t
the application was delivered to Ms. Mason on September 20,1989,
at about 2:30 p.m. Mrs. Blackstock did not see what was done
with the envelope but Ms. Mason told her that she would look
after it t >lrs. Blackstock stat.~d that :-Is . i'lason did not tell ,-"",.Q r
LL-_ L
t.hdt thr:, mail l-:.ad ;",1 ready 1 ;~ft before thE:' 2i. L='F ì 1. cat 1. 0) n ',"¡ .:¡ s
dt~liv2r2d t~} her.
.
- .
,.
,
22
Ms. Lobo also testified on behalf of the Employer in the
C2..se of ~Ir. Blackstock. She stated that it h',3,S the p0Ii;~y ê":£ tb(?
EmploY2t to place applications received late in the competition
file but not to treat them as part of the competition. In order
for an application to be considered by the Human Resources
Department, it had to be received at Head Office by the deadline
stated in the posting, in this case the amended deadline being
September 20, 1989, with a day of grace being a 11 owed. '
I
Ms. Lobo stated that after receipt of information that the
Griever had filed an application, she arranged for a search to,. be
made in an endeavour to locate his application but it could not
be found and it had not been found to the date of the hearing.
Ms. Lobe acknowledged that the Griever and one other
employee wer~ allowed to write the test in circumstan~es where
the other applicant's application did not arrive at Head O.f f ice
in time. In the case of that applicant, however, the
circumstances were said to be different lti that his applica.tic:1
had been delivered to Head Office in time but was not forwarded
to the Human Resources Section by the receptionist whc received
it.
:l r .. Su.hcnc~~ ,.:; 1 so test if i\~d F,~ ,- '- t-. '"""'- ~ """',..-.. 1 r-""'- ':-:-. ...~ t r-.~?: {'; ,:J.. S :~~ ,_, c
--'-- ~"'" .L 1... Ll~_ _ .l.~'...... ".'''::: \".:.. 1. .......L "_'1..
'ft". ßl¿i.~·k:~tcck . (¡'J S t,)c::d tha.t hf.::: had ins t :r~c-r: iC;!1s nct: t~) l?~·~:·rnit
:'.1... . , «" any applicant to write the test if his ,-,'\,4 r1-l~r nam(~ ,,'a~:; 7"',0t ,-,..-, +- 1.-. Ó
'..'J.. '-" 1 ... \.- L l \_
--"----
:
# ..
.
1 "
23
3ppraved.·list. Because he could nc:t obta.in information that the
Griev:Jrts appli::ation had been submitted ' n time, be mZl~:1~~ r,·¡h,j,::: 1:1 :=:
.L. .
r c~ f c\ i· t~ C~ d t c as a IT j udg(::'m~~ n t calltf and permitted th.:: C r' i :=c " .~' r t·~
write the test and placed the completed test in a sealed envelope
and took it to the Human Resources Department with the intention
of having someone there decide whether it should be mar.ked. Mr.
Suhonos stated that the difference between the case of the
Grievor and the other applicant who was also permitted to write
the test, . subject to a decision being made as to whether the test
.. .
would be marked, ·was that the latter applicant was fcund to ha \7e
filed his application in time.
.
It was argued on behalf of the Grievor that as he had filed
applications In the same way previously without complaint his
application should be deemed to have been filed In time: that lS,
GD S'eptember 20, 1989. Then~ was no evidence to shc\'I/' that t ~i2
Emplo:{er had in the past accepted applications whi¿h arrived at
H~~¿ Office after the grace date. The fact that the Gri:-~"C.7C:::'- h,,,,d
filed applications in the same way In the past does not establish
that the Employer had treated applications as having been filed
in time when they were filed at the project office before the
clcsingdate for the receipt of applications. ~ve did not hea;>:
.~ ~\7 1 d. ,~= nee ,3.- S t:) \v h:,? r1 the GrieFo]:' ha.d f i L?d his 2Fplicatians ,], !:" the
~, ... "., -, ,-~".-.'- ':.:f f i ::;,-=- 1n the.' l?.J.st. Th2V CCti I ~~ h ci \' e br-:.IC~ £ i l::?d -; ~...
;,.,. ..,. )".'- '" .l....1
~uf.E)_::i2L1t '[ line b;~ £ 0 C ,~ t~e ::: L) sin '=J (1.:1, :: ~2' so ,~lS t~i . , f c'. t- t h ;-'~ i r-
r~L.1. 1:,) ,~..¡
}:; ,"'~\ i. n 9 rJ (": 1 i \/ ,,~._. r ,::_. d tn Head Of f ic rõ: thrcuc;h the int[~r-nal mail S \T S t f~ m
.
~ .'
.
"
24
before the expiry of the o;¡race day referred to.
C~.)unsel fGr the Union ~~nde3.voured t::. make something of the
fact that the current practice in posting notices of job
vacanCies is to state that the applicants must ~ensure delivery
to Metropol·itan Toronto Housing Authority, 365 Bloor streett
East, Toronto, M4W 3L4~ and to further provide that "all
applications must be received by Human Resources no late:c than í a
stated date) (Exhibit 16) . This was contrasted with the
provisions found in Exhibit 15. It was argued that the ·job
posting information in Exhibit 15 did not require that the
...+
application be received by Human Resources at Head Office by the
c.losing date. while the current practice is more specific and
represents a clear direction to applicants, the directions found
in Exhibit 15 are sufficiently specific so as to require that the
application be received at Head Office by the closing date,
sllbject to the Employer's allowing a grace day.
It was the further position taken on behalf of the Grievor
that the Employer had to make reasonable accommodations to' permit
an applicant to write the test. The Employer was said to have
acted unreasonably because it did not mark the Grievor's paper;
because it refused to do so withcut seeking guidance from the
~-_.: ::~ fr:_m i t t ~~ c~ 2 S t: (~i b 1 i 5 [t ¡'""~ d to ch8,:::s2 the :;;Llc2essful (:~ ¿~ n r:l i d .} t e '5 ; ,~in::1
~~; C:-:.,; j].:':::; C no p~ejl1di2C W~Jl11d be suffered by 3r:.1;"" otru~r a r?l) 1 i C à n t s Co' r
bv it Employ!~r ·F it permitted the Grievor's paper to be m,J.rl;Ç2d.
l-<-
._~~---
.
.. ..
.
'I
25
Counsel for the Employer argued that the Griev-or was \.,¡~ll
.:ì. ~yVa re Q f the -t:'--",-.1- ;.. t., - ' th;~ mail often tock s e '...:"" era 1 cia -,/ S t 0 a r r i ;,,~ 2
.L <.,;.1 ,_ L- L.uct"C
a.t H0ad office £ rCJrn "the fir Valley C8urt pt'cj·.=~:::t r)ffice-. In t. ~""'¡C
circumstances he was said to have accepted the risk that the
application would not be delivered before the grace day. On the
evidence, we find that that the Grievor took unwarranted chances
when he chose to h,ave his wife deliver the applicatìon to the fir
."
Valley Court project office on September 20, 1989 at 2:30 p.m.
when he knew that there was a good chance that it would not be
received at Head Office by September 21, 1991. The wording· of
Exhibit 15 indicates that the application must be received by the
Human Resources Department by the closing date and not that it
would be deemed to be received if delivered to some other office
by the closing date.
It is not only a question of whether other applicants would
be prejudiced or whether Borne detriment would be suffered by the
Employer in permitting the Grievor's exam to De marked because hi::'
wrote the test. It is also a question of the integrity of tbe
precess and of the right of the Employer to establish a
reasonable deadline for filing applications. The fact that it
voluntarily afforded a grace period does not mean tha't it was
;-::bllS-?d to enlarge that ¡Jcriod. The f a:.::t that the applic3ticn
:'\-",.1 :~ 1:) s: (~~ a n n~) t at-fact th;:; £ .3 ~:. t that c~ \T e n if t his ,-" e r 2 !lC; t t h.£-=~
C,1S(___~ It ¡,,¡ou 1 d ncthava arrived at Head Office u nt i 1 SCHne time
aft e- r"' t 11 ;~ expi 1'y ;:;f the 9~ace period. ç^Je are alsCl affected by
- " I
;
~ ..
.
-t
26
tlìe fact that Mrs. Blacksock's recollection was that the the
er.velope contCiining the a¡;:plicatlon. ,vas delivered t-,.., Ms; ~·1.3. S c r~
<-,~
uns"::a.led. ::1s~ Mason believed that t: 1~ ~~ e n ~\<_r ,= l~:.:: pe had ben s,;~aledf
.c ~ L{_
but she did not seal it herself. In the circumstances it lS quite
possible that the application somehow became seperated from the
unsealed envelope, and this lS a not unreasonable explanation for
its not having been found. The Employer cannot be faulted ·,fQr the
manner in which the Grievor chose to transmit the application.
In the result, Mr. Blackstock's grievance must fail.
At the commencement of the hearing on March 8 , 1991, a
question arose as. to the obligation of the Employer to produce
certain documents requested by the Union. In a letter from
counsel for the Employer to the representative of the Union,
Ja.ted October 26, 1990 (Exhibit 9) , the following statements f~..¡e.r~
made: . ,-- ~
A request has been mad.e by Wally Devoe for documents ~yf the
successful candidates In the above matter. The request ,.¡ a s
forwarded to me as the hearing is underway and I am retained
3.'" counsel fo~ Metrcpolitan Toronto Housing Authcrìt:y. As
'- .:>
you are acting for the unlon 1n this matter, I am directing
my·correspondence to you. In the event that.you wish my
correspondence to be directed to anyone else, please
indicate this to me.
.'\s you may be a1.vare, the Freedom of Information Act
[.1rohibits theaisclosure of Fe rsona,l employment information,
, -, r~ ,::in emr: 1 ~)~'~~(~ t S dcct:men-:'3 relating ¡"'" a jc:b-'
r-' 1 ~ .-. "')
.:;, o..A. ~_ l ~ 0':> L..\_'
:. ~) rnE~;~ t ~ t i G u ~~¡ i. t h.:~~t~ t 4- 1.-, --.. ... ~=:m;~IG~l".22 t 3 ¡, r i t t (} ;; ~:-~) ~~ s::::·n t .
i.._ ~ L....1 ,_
.-
Thr~refc 1'e ~/.¡ ~:2 ca n n~)t dis::: los:~ the m,:t t í~ r i 31 r ;:"(1112~':; t ~~;-1 :; t t:hi~;
t irne . H(~~~e',,"':::::r ~ ..; ç ~{O ~~ 0 eta. in ~...~ri ttC"D r'::Jr~s¡?nts frem ;:: h.2
-'- "-
S 1)2 -:"".: ~:~ S~: f u 1 ~~a ndid.a t¿'s 'i....~ 11 i c b \v 0 U L: <-illcw U'" "'r, r~:: 1 f...: Ù :3 e t~-;2:'~:
'- L-'..'
;':'.Jmp,~t it ion dc~cuments to ,----,.. ., w'.:? 'Nill be ha.ppy to relr-=,3S;=
.::: ~~ Vl ,
the dCC'L:rnr-~nts .
I
--~~.~--~- I
õ' .
,
'.
27
The Employer was concerned that 1 ' certain of the
re.Leaslng
~~l () ::> 1_tm~~ n t ::; r,-=>qu,,-, s t 2::1 \,;OU 1 d result lO it cGmmittin'j a b r !e>3. é~ h ~ - t r~::.~
F¡'('edcm c£ I r, f r; nna tic 0 and Prctec:tion of Pri'çac-',t ~ ,-.... 19::9 S.C.
.""";;. '0- !_ I
1989, cap25. We are aware of the fact that compliance with the
latter Act, because it requlres the granting of an order by a
tribunal such as the Board could have a negative impact on the
amount of voluntary production that has been made In the past.
::-.levertheless, the concerns of the Employer are real and must be
examined. An earlier panel of the Board In Cheong 1895/90
(Gorsky) , considered the same problem and some q£ the comments
that are pertinent to this case are reproduced:
The parties appear before us In orcl.er .that we might deal
with difficulties that they have experlence relating +-~ the
<--v
production of certain documents sought by counsel for the
Union.
The parties brought to our attention an award lD another
c,::tse involT.;ing the Grievor in t rle case before us, OrSEl'
(C;¡eí) Ïìl:t ì and The Crí)wn In RìG~t of Ontario (Minist pc " 1=
"_. ~.i-
Gevernmànt S~rvices) 325/90 (Samuels) . In thd.t ca s~~ f th¡~
Grievor also 21aimed that she ought ...~ naT...7e been tb:~
'.... ~....-
su.cc e 53 £~--11 candidate In a jeb :::ompetition and that the
Employer had violated Art. 4.3 ,~ .¡: the ccllective a'Jreement.
'_'-J-..
CQuns(~l for the Onion, in preparation for the hearing lO
that ,.--.,¡-..,.....~ caused the Board tc: issue a summons t,:) the
\_a.,::¡c f
Employer, requiring that certain documents be produced.
Counsel for the Employer sent a letter to counsel for the
union, dated December 7, 1990 which read:
I am In receipt of the subpoena issued 00 behalf '-. +'
,-.J..
your clí~nts l!1 the above matte r. In 0rder to clarif~~
Y:Jur Goderstanding :'J£ the Em¡,:;loye.r's ¡?osition ~li i t 11
rcs~'ec t +- ~, the ~J t· (J d Ll C t i:-:; n cf dc~.~umcn t s , E-' 1 -2 ~3 S e 8,"::'
'- '..~
':1;:1 \C" i s ~~:] that the Empl:::,y,~~· h -. r·· f};) 8 b j i~~:' t i ~J n r ~, ;:. t" .:: Ö t~~' ~ n.'~t
ll~';<' .j ,-.... - -
t:"'.;:"·s e uCJcumcnts £r:::::m the con)L)~~~t i tc lGD fiL~ hhìch .:{ !- (-~
di..t~2~:'tly l:elat<:::d t:) th,~ C: t- i:= \.,.~~ ,r r ~) !"" ~v11i(:,~ .3. 1-- ;.2; r .~ 1 e 'I ,::t n r:
.. t .~ t Lc; 2JS:~ . rrl-.o'--) Em!? 1 ~:; y ''::::.: ! h () \;' E' V ;" r , c ~J 1.11 d I' ,', ¡.- ,.... ...... ,-~ ,.::¡ , , .-.. ,-:'
.~ ...I" -J. ~._ 1....... ,~ L-.c.. ~./ ..... '-.-.,~-.-
f8r YCl.l r 2ii.tire ::;ompc~t ì t ion file without a d:~t ':" i 1 ~~::1
d('~scri.l:;t.ion of tb,~ documents requ~stcd-. :'he only
,
" .
~
28
~
documents which the Employer will net produce to yeu
;...¡ i the; tt t ~Y' o rJe l' :)f t.he.Boarc1 a.ree thos,~ \v' !ì i c ;:]. I .;. - .-.
LI. ~. ""'"- ~ i. L ~ 'J
\·let~ , ar.:: net rel(~\.cant to the C,~Sí::' t ocr th:::se ',·,h.i:::h
~: a r~n~:t "l-..c. rel,~ased llnd(~r the p rO'"r 1 S 18 ns ,~ ~ tl1C:' Fr,~ed(~rn
~"" .~ J..
of Information and Protection of Pri'.'Clc,y ,=let. . . .
At pages 4 - 6 of the decision referred to, the Board
stated:
The parties then showed up at the hearing
expecting this panel to rule simply on what
documents ought to be produced, and then it was
taken that we would adjourn, having ess~ntially
wasted an entire day of the panel's time. It was
the understanding of both counsel that, ln job
competition cases, this Board no longer begins
right in to hear the evidence 1n a case, but
rather the summons 1S not answered properly and
the Ministry waits for the Board to order
production of documents. The first day of hearing
is taken up entirely with this matter of
production.
We informed counsel at the hearing that, although
such a procedure may have occurred 1n rare cas,~s
before at this Board, the policy and practice òf
this Board have not degraded to the point where
such a colossal waste of time is made on every job
competition case. This Board 1S not the creature
of the parties. It is created by statute and is
funded out of the public purse. The parties must
do whatever lS necessary to facilitate the
hearing, to coc[1er.J.te ln a reasonable fashion with
one another, so that this Board's time and enet·9Y
are used effectively.
.
It may be that the list of dccuments lO the
summons 15 somewhat too extensive--it 18 not
immediately apparent that one needs "the entire
contents of the competition file", or "all resumes
or applications fer employment for the said
position by all of the applicants" (there ma.y have
been thirty applicants, twenty-seven of whom were
n~1t even qua 1 ifÜ~d enc-=ugh to t"8ach the in t e ]:"'\/ i ,'?h'
S' t .3. 'J,:-:: ; it \'llOU 1 d S L1 £ f i ;::' f'2 ;.¡: th;~~ cl~)c1..1m~?n t s r.'l;"2 r¡:..~
J..J..
r ~ r c:~ \~ i d c.~ d F..-, -.- thG S UJ~ ::~ 1:! s s f u 1 ..JL:~.pl iCdnt ;::ï n~l eCL'hap::.,
J.........,_
£'J!' t hr:~G ~-... "'... ~"-'I' """" sf L-~~ closest r: i "1"'/":'11 ::) ) - -1Ju. t ' ~
'j .l. ~~.J \.\.. '''''¡'- ...L ~ I
1 a :r ::JC'~ [11(~JSUl-e it ,\'as .r-¡?a. s(~ na. b 1 ~~ ..
Th~ :VI i n i s try ~s net ne~v tc this g<3.me 41 Th,=
2>1inistry said in its letter of December 7 d-ì",t it
--- -~
.
- .
,
'I
29
was ~vi 11 ing to produce any document relevant to
this ,.--..~t:Cl; But. +...1--'::-:':'0 l,ìst· cf docc.ments '."hich .~ ,~ . ,..:¡
"- '_4"J '_ . t. L ~ ~__ l,- ......~ l,_..l
release ~-Jere Ob'lious 1 y nct all the :' e 1 e \C ant
dccumerL-ts. ~ 'The Ministry did net turn :::\~er a.~y
cl,') cume n t. s relati!ì') to the s l1 c' c e S S £ l..ll applica.nt,
ncr any other applièant. Now how could the
Ministry not have known that these documents Were
relevant? How could the Union have possibly
prepared its case if it didnTt even have the
documents relating to the successful applicant?
The Ministry1.s r-esponse ~n its letter of December-
7 \.,¡as absolutely inadequate. The Ministry was
ordered by the Board by summons, to turn ever the
relevant documents. The Ministry failed to do so.
section 11(a) of the Crown Employees Collective
Bargaining Act glves this Board the power "to
summon and enforce the attendance of witne,sses and
to compel them to give......written evidence".
The summons itself lS enforceable and ultimately
any person who fails to answer the summons
properly can be cited for contem['t of court.
There was no need tor any further order ~or
production of documents. The Board had made its
~ -,:,'" . order In the summons, and the ,"Ii ni stry improperly
failed to respond tc the summons.
Nonetheless, at our hearing, we ordered the c.,_).-L..
Ministry to turn over the resumés and applications
of the SlX candidates, the scorlng sheets for all
c:andidates, any notes In the competition fi12
relating to the scoring of these candidates, ani
any other clearly rel~vant documents.
And then we were forced to adjourn because the.
parties were not ready to proceed \vith the
hearing. This was a gross waste of time.
(Emphasis In the original)
On January 10, 1991, the Chair of the Ontario C r O'i..' n
Employees Grievance Settlement Board wrote the following
letter to the representatives of the parties:
Mr. Brent Gibbs Mr. Kevin Park
Director Grievance CDO rd i ria t~~~..
Empl~Jie¿~ R21~ti()11s Branch (ìnt2ri~; Publi~:: s::,,' ,. i ::·2.·
ELlmdrl R2SCUrC'(~S SeC' .r·,~t.3. r ia t SmFloy;~{~:.:; T - ¡.-, -~ ,., ....
...... I . ..... '....' . ~
M2 iìa.0 cm(~ f¡ t. Boar.d of Cabinet 1901 ':::::~'rl9;2 St:.re~~t
fc:,sf: Building S :) 1) t h , 3rd f 1,.:::;; r T;::roilt;~ I 't: '
(J n .- t,-; r .1. :)
~ Queen's Pa rJ<, R ~') c. rn 240 M4~, ~Z5
,.
TCl'onto, Or..ta.ril)
~T7.~ 1z5
".
> ,j,
.
..
30
.
D;.~~r Ylr. Gibbs and ::-Jr. P",rk:
~'Jhe re' the emplcyer requlres 3..:1 Order Df the Board lrt
order tG pr:')-duce documents In j,~h ::-cmpet it ic',n C' ..?~ S e s ~ .3-
~-'
request in writing shall be filed with the Registt"ar by
either party prior to the date of hearing.
It would be appreciated if you would please advise all
.counsel appean.ng on behalf of the parties of thi.s
practice.
We were informed that the letter of January 10, 1991 was
intended to respond to some of the Employer's concerns
arlslng out of the prOV1Slons of The Freedom of Information
and Protection of Privac'~ Act.
. . .
The I?rincipal issue which was put b,~fore us t....:¿L S with respect
to how the directive of the Chairman, dated January 10 of
1991 was to be implemented In the light of the Employer's
obligations under the Freedom of Information and Protection
of Privacy Act, 1987.
Before dealing with certain other matters relating to -I-l-"ð
L L ~~_
production of documents which were raised at the hearing, W·.::J.
L
will first deal with the principal issue as identified
above.
pd though it appears f l::)m :vis. Sil ,/erman I s lett:~1:' of ~laf'ch 1
L,
1991 that documents containing the names of other
individuals would be produced if a Beard order to that
effect were issued, \'!I~e were left ...á t h the further ':'SS1..12 of
~vhether such an order ,.ou} d conflict '..,¡ith the FrÇ:t.,~c-c ic r~
prCV1Slons of the Freedom of Info nnat ion and Protection of
Privacy Act, 1987.
There appear to be no cases that have questioned the
jurisdicti,on of the Board to lssue and enforce production of
documents pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum or to lssue an
order for the production of documents lrl the absence of a
subpoena duces tecum being issued first.
S~c:tion 19(:2) of the ç t'c<,,'n Emploi'ees C:-J 11 e =:: t i \7 f=," E<L¡- 'J .;.-; i!1 ~ n J
.'\::"::: s.. S-'" 0 . , 1930 cap.108 F C~) ',..- i c1 ::: s th.3.t: " t 11(~ (~:~ i.=:; ~/ r3. n:--'~~?
Settlement Boal'd has the same powers as .3 Boarct ~) f
Ad:;it ration und,:,=r subsc<:.:t i c-n s (i 1) and ( 1:2 ) . " Tbi:; [ e 1 e '.~.3- n t
P()!·t i.C1!')s of see t i ~~, ;--1 11 ( 11) c' £~:·t h e 13.t:t2Z" ~~C't .:1..::.+:= .:\~ £ c: 11 O'I'¡ S :
"( e) to summen and enfcr'_"e the at_tendance of \r\l.itnesses a r~~~
to c ~)mrJe 1 them to sive oral ::Jr ",Ii l' it ten ev iclenc e (;C:. :,,:tth C1'
. - -----. - - , -
.
, ,. *
.,
31
affirmation. . . I, There has been an assum~tiGn made' in som'e
tha,t th2 Bc,rJ..rcl t' j u r i s C.1 i c t i ~) n t i ~) n +-~ :::r::12l" the
..... -. r--,.....~..-- h~~ n""3
...... (.:.:t~I_~ "'-ð '-'-'
P r ~~~~d.l¡~ t i 8 n ':~ f J:Jcuments r,~lying on the p:rovlslcns r:;·f sectlcn
11(11) (a) ~) f t :r~ .:~ latter Act.
If the Board has the jurisdiction to issue an order pursuð.nt
to a sub¡Joena duces tecum or without the issuance of such a
subpona,then the provisions of section Sl( 2) of the Freedom
of Informqtion and Protection of Pri v.acy Act, 1987 would
permit it to compel the production of documents as it could
do prior to the enactment of the latter Act:
The Act does n~+- affect the pct,¡e r of a tribunal to
'-'c- . . .
compel a witness to testify or compel the product i::;n . cf
a document.
In Re Toronto Star and Southern Ontario Newspaper
·Guild(l983}, 11 L.A..C.(3rd) 249 (Swan), ';"¡hich was ::l,~c i12d
under the Labour Relations ,3.ct, R.S.O.1980,c.228, ther2 was
an lssue (at £1.250) ccncernlng: "the extent to \..; hie; h th2
union can compel production of documents from the employer
in order to permit it to make its case at arbitration." .'\t
the hearing the only matter argued was the extent .to which
'. the arbitrator had jurisdiction to compel the production of
documents.
The argument focused on a subpoena duces tecum prepared by
counsel for the union and issued by the arbitrator on May
18, 1983.
The arbitrator noted, at p,251-2:
The employer's argument lD this case takes it cut cf
the :::-3. t ego ry ~f rec:ent decis18ns r21atin9 to t rl¡~
'-'~
aut her i t lor of 3.D arbitrator- to 'crder productiGo " f
'~ -
documents. ~Iost of those cases have turned upon the
question ~.- whether an arbitrator has the,authoritv t8
~L
order~ In effect, d i SCC1v72 r'i ~¡: documents prlor to t: hr:::
'-'-'-
arbitration hearing. ~vh i 1 e the situation may be
somewhat different ln British Columbia, where the
Labour Code, R ,,5 . B . S . 1979, c '. 212, ~ 102(1), glves a
"'.
board of arbitration jurisdiction to compel witnesses
ntc 9 rc~~juc e the documents and things it considers
requisit'2 full . d . . the
t~) a CQnSl~eratlon..9ln S·3.ffie m,ê,nn('2r
'-
~ ~ L' C ~:~ L1 r t ~., re~::8rd ' ~ :::- i ',- i 1 :':'~.3 S ~~ S ,. ( 3;::e F: .=, Pacific
c"t ."". .-,......
P ~-:? ;=: ·S' LI~(l. ,~nd v--.-).:.."1 C~()!) t -/;: r - ~\] f~~-1Ì f~'estmins t 8[ ~Vi:¡.¡spa:_;(·:,-
(:J) ~: 1 ;] r ]-;,)ca 1 115 (lS?~:ì ~ L ..~. c. ( ~ ,1 ) " 1 h i \'1,-.,-.".1 1 ...
, ............{ ¡ , . , -....._ '_ ...... i-. L . I
,êtl' bit r ':" t c .c s -,-" C)n t 13. r ic h <3. ~.; <::; In ~e~era.l C'cnc-luded th3.t
t}-¡:::; j u. L~ i S ~-.ll ~~. tic· n '.::Qn f;;:: c t'cd 1.1 f.'C) n. "them bi.- th;~ L..?J, b~),.'c: r
R e 1._~ t ion s /;, '2 t , R,S.O. 1r¡qn ::.~28, ::h>:: s :181: iricluJe
..L -" (...."... , -"
jurisdictic;n to c r d e t- l?re-hea,ring d i s c ~:: T'¡ ~~ r y ;j f
documents. The Cd ~;es are collected in Re CLty c;f C;'ue lph
I
I
;
~ '.
.
32
:wd Guelph Profi2ss onal Firefighters Assoc.. Local 467
(193::2) . ~ T "'\ ... ( d) " ') (Beatty) , !"Vhí~r~ the .3. r· ç j t. r ¿i ::: c r
~ J...J. . ,-'-o~ . '__ ... -<.;
C c~ n c 1 Ll des th2it e;nly cne C-3. 3("2 r Re Ci h' i:.>f PE't e L br) _r~) :.1';.... 11
and peterborouqh Profession<Jl Fire Fi9h ters Assc'c..
Loc·.-ll 519 (1978), 19 L.A.C. L2d) 264 (Bl~~=-~<it...~n) , ;:-:ssc:rts
that there ~s such an authority. In the Guelph
Firefighters case, as 1n a number of other cases
previously, the arbitrator indicated that the
difficulties which the absence of any express statutory
authority to compel discove.t'y of documents might create
could þe alleviated by the issue of a subpoena duces
tecum to reqUlre the documents to be brought,to the
hearing, following which, in a appropriJ:te CJ:se, an
adjournment might be applied for and granted to permit
the documents to be examined and the case to be
prepared based upon them: see Re Fabricated Steel
Pl'oducts (Windsor) Ltd. and U..4.W.. Local 195 (1977),
16 L.A.C. (2d) 148 " ( 0 r Shea) ; Fe Canadian Broadcasting
Corp. and C.U.P.E., Broadcast Division (1978), 18
L.A.C,' (2d) 357 (Adams) .
Mr. Swan further stated at p.252:
In the case before me, Mr.. Rogers indicated that if I
had an authority to lSSU2 a subpoena duces tecum to
requlre officials of the employer to bring documents
relevant to this matter to the hearìng. he would have
no obje6tion to pre-hea.t'ing production of those
documents to the unlon; as he very reasonably pointed
out, if I ha\le an autnority to l S S'l1.e a subpoena elL/ce.s
tecum, the exercise of waiting until the he2..ring +-~
'- '-'
produce the documentation, and then rutting all thf-~
participants through the ' . of an
lnconvenlence
adjournment, would simply be a ~v a 5 t e of time. Mr.
Rogers' position was, however, a much more funda,menLd
attZick on the jurisdiction of an arbit:rator than
appears to have arl8en 1.n any pt'eVlOUS case: it h'as ]¡is·
contention that arbitrators under the Labour Relations
.'1ct have jurisdiction to -- subpoena duces
no issue a
tecum at all.
Mr. Rogers submitted, correctly l.n my view. that ;n
Q., .
arbì tra-tor can draw jurisdiction In a particular matter
from thre2 - only: t.he submission to arbitration,
sources
including the gt'lcvance referred; the ccll¡Ò'c::tivé!
.3.0r:~~r~ment r ,). ["";,(..1 any st,3.tutcry gr.3..nt. of ju.risdi:-:tl8n. In
the 1.:; r :~~ S e i:. t Î" ':) r'_'"':.-, r:~~ìt-h(.::y t- h ,-, ~:J r i e-".~a. rl2 e n,~r :-.he
~_ '-" ."":J' ., t..- -'-.. ,_
C8 11 ,?;; t i '078 aij :-eement mak2S .?1, t'iY r\~ f e.r e nc I~ t~, F r CH::l i.1 :-:.~ t i~:: n
on tvh.ich I might reI}"" f and any jurisdiction \iJ~ i::; l~ì I
might h.:l rv~:~ purported tG e x ~= r c 1. s ~::: In lssulrrg t1-, .:'
\ ..'-"
subt:;oena. In this milt ter must C8me from the Labour
F..:::la t ion-s Act itself. In s~ far as the C":J.llectiv~
-~~--~-~
.
. ~~' ~
-t
33
agreement, is concerned, he observed that art. ? and ,.., 1 .
-' ~- ..... .
1.+09 ctC deal t-, a limited ext:?:ît ',vith the prcduct i:; ['; .-~ "'!"'"
,~
d·:.JCllnlèots between the· pa.ries, but neither one cf t. h e n~
confers a.ny jl~r i sd ict ion ;)0 me.
If this Board has the authority to lssue. a subpoena duces
tecum, it would also,have the power to compel the production
of docuI1\ents which a party failed to produce as required by
the subpoena. However, unlike a case unaffected bì:' the
Freedom of Information andProtectiol) of Privacy Act, 198'(,
the case before us 1S subject to the prOV1Sl.OnS of section
51(2) of the latter àQt which limits its application where
the tribunal compels the production of the documents.
In the Toronto Star case, the powers of an arbitrator under
section 44(8) the Labour Relations Act were set out as
follows:
An arbitrator or the "chairman of an arbitration board,
as the case may be, has power,
(a) to summon and enforce the attendance of
witnesses and to compel them to give oral or
written evidence on oath 1n the same manner
as a court of record in civil cases; and
(b) to administer oaths,
and an arbitrator or an arbitration board, as the case
my be, has power/
(c) to accept such oral or writt~n evidence -,~
",co>
the ad::itrator or the arbitration board, ¡JS
the case may be, ~n its discretion considc~rs
prope 1· I wheth2r admissible ~n a court of 1.3. ~\'
or not;
In the Toronto Star case the position of the em!?l aye t' \~',3 s
that the expreS~310n ''\H i t ten evidence on ooJ.th" 10 sectio;-)
44(8)(a) of the Labour Relations Act "cannot refer to the
production of pre-existing documents at the hearing by a
~.¡i tness. " The arbitrator asked: "if the quoted words do not
cenfer an authority to lssue a subpoena duces tecum, what dr'
...'"
they lr1 fact authorize?"
At p.2.57-8 of the Toronto Star case, the arbitrat8r stl3.t:~d :
. . . ..'1 n~:~ t [12 r ,va y ~) f 1 oc.~ ~ci n9 .3t this m.J. t t := r is t o· -"i<~t It;.~ r1
t;:: the i? rc: \"'!" J. S 1 C E S c£ ~ . 44(8) and to observe that the
!:::;) \oJ 2 t~ Jiven t¡) ·':'.L¡ .:; r bit }:' d tor ' ~ .. (é:\) to summon ~:l.n-::1
.L'"
2nforce th8 at tcndùnc,~ ~) f \v~ i t Ii ~~ sse s and t·-· c c. mr":' 1 t h ~:'nl
~-;
tog i ",' e 01'.).1 o r \.¡ r i t t e. n evidence on oath ~n the same
. manner as a court of record ~n c i \~ i 1 cases" [ emph':Jsis
~
~ ~,,,-,;' '.
't.
34
added In original] . Reference agaln t:) the Ontario
Pules c:f P t'Cict i~:;e to see exactly ho..,; it l ~. thd.t ..:-.. ,.. .--' ~ ... -~- +-
.J "_ ,-," l.-l ~ I.~
of record lit civil cases summons and enfor:ces tli.c'
attendance ~.c witnesses leads only to 8~l.lle ~7.2, h'b.i:::h
u.L
1n ~ +- -, ent ir::.'t~l prQ",¡'"id.es:
",,-=>
272, A subpoena may be issued from any office of
the court at any time in blank and may be
completed by the solicitot" or party, and anv
number of names may be
inserted In one subpoena (form 57) .
Form 57, the only form of subpoena l?t"ovided under the
rules which lS relevant to this discussion, is a fo:cm
of subpoena cn which the duces tecum clause has already
been inserted. It would be possible, theH~fore t by
simply crossing out that clause to turn the form into a
subpoena ad testificandum, or by leavinq the clause a.nd
filling In the documents to be produced +-~ make it. a
L.U
subpoena duces tecum. It lS obviously intended,
therefore that a court of record In civil cases may
summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses to
testify, or to produce documents, or both. Holmested
and Gale, Ontario Judicature Act and Rules of Practice
11982 ) vol. ') at pp. 1507-8, make it clear that the
... f
jurisdiction to summon and enforce attendance of
witnesses inherently includes a jurisdiction to compel
attendance not only to testify but also to produce
documents at the hearing.
I am therefore of the -y- l2 W that s . 44(8) ::1e3.r1y
ìnclud.2s the authority to issue a subpoena duces tecL~rn f
and that t 112 additional words used In s. 1 0 3 ( :2 ) r _~.¡ hat r ..~~
have c3.l1ed the .. Frcduce r." .......1, de::uments" ~ldL1S2, """1'"1 C +-
.::. ......1.- .\.. ... ~ l ...... . oJ '-
be interpreted to confer th(-= power- to reqlllre the
production of dc:::uments p .':" i ::;'l:: tc the hearing, b~- ~.¡a~/ ~:£
a fo rm fJf disc:;very. . . .
The arbitrater concluded at p. 259:
The better Vl2\'\' , and the "fair, wide and liberal
interpretation", which I aml:"equired to glve to the
statutory prOVlSlon, lS that the power to issue a
subpoer;a duces tecum 1S subsu:ned within s. 44 (8) , In
tr.is r:~J,3.rd I I .3.dap !:. \C ~ !1 i. t c he 11 '.5 submlS3l(JO t h.J. t ; .c
..1..1. f l...L
th :~: ~;-l.. e s (J. r; t r r .::: \:" 1 ~'3. J_ C n ~·hd ~.~~ ')iv;~ S~.1:-:' h a. F~)\.vc t' ~ , ·=t :1
. "
I L....... ~... '- '-'
a r r.-.. i t r ~3 t ::-; J.. T a.n. i :T::7L:) J i ,~ t :~ s t.::¡ t n t C t' Y am2~·jm2nt \'li-:Jl11·j ~.:.'
!:"'2::j1¡ 1. J:(::d t~J '::~~~lStlre that j L1st i.,-:;,:;: cC~11d' bt:~ ...:1 ,.... ......, .~, l:-l ~ L1. t~
v~.... ~ "_- -
+- t.-. --\ la.~g:-::: m.::-!.j~")t-itl:"- .~ to ,J. l~ t: i t rat i ~J n C2.S;~S . T~ ~ ,~ ·.:;th2r
·__..l'_ '_'-J-.-- .L.L 1 ~ ,~.
f:.1 ~ C ~l:-td s \\o'C' r(~ a Ÿ-...1. i 1.-3. b 1 ~:~ ... ~, dc~:: ide bet ~~.. 2; é n the t' '...
,"'~ ~1;,. '....
cent end~~(1 int2Lpretati:-Jw:; r that sLlbmi s s ion ,:1. 10 n:2 '.;joulJ
be su..: f ic~ i:::nt t~, ,-~..: e .1. <J" b In f 3- ......-:.:; u:r f as a " F _~~ -; .,..- \\iid2 a.nd
,~ ..ì..-._..........L. 1
.----~ -
~
'.. '.
"
35
liberal interpretation", of the interpretation \~h ic h
b;,;st ~ ~-.. '-'""\.-11",,-,,, ~ r· t .:) dOlng just iCf= bet~"Te(=n the ~.3.rti~s~
~_. ,_.. J.l. ....~....... I.- ,_ ,,:)
Sccticn ~4 (8) (",) l)f the Labour Relati:.;ns .'\ct differs, f~'crn
sectlcn 11(11)(3.) of the CrC:l.\rn Em!? I ;::::--e e s C c I .1 i:~ (' t i \.. '?
Bargainin9 Act ln that>the latter statute dees not cor.tain
the words: "in the same manner as a court of record 1n civil
cases... " Mr. Swan, 1n the Toronto star case, noted that
.
section 103(2) of the Labqur Relations Act, glves the
ontario Labour Relations Board the power to compel witnesses
"to produce such documents and thÚlgs as the Board considers
requisite to the full investigation and considet'ation of
matters within its jurisdiction 1n the same manner as 3.
court of record 1n civil cases... " Also, the Statuto!:"v
.
Powers proceÇ!ure Act, R.S.O. 1980, c.484, which· does not
apply to arbitrators under the Labour Relations Act,
provides, 10 section 12(1}, that:
A tribunal may require any person, including a party,
bv surnmcns,
( a } to give evidence on oath or affirmation at a
hearing; and
(b) to produce 1n evidence at a hearing documents
and things specified by the tribunal,
relevant to the subject-matter of the proceedings and
admissible at a hearing.
Section 12 (4-) ~f the Cro~.¡n Eml?loyees Collectiv2 Sa r~J.a..i n illS
.v_
.:;ct prc'.rides tha.t the Statutory P P , Ac:~ c:lc~:: s
ow:? rs, roc :~au:re
nc:;t .:::.pply t,) ,3.rb i t ra t ions under that .'\ct.
Mr. Swan also noted secticn 118 cf the Canada La!:Jour C~jdp I
R.S.C. 1970, which provides:
The [Canada Labour Relations] Beard has ,. l.n
relation to any proceeding before it, power
(a) to summon and enforce the attendance of
witnesses and compel them to gl\o'e ora.l ~,...
'.' ~
written evidence on oath and to produce S tl C r1
documents and things as the Boat..a deems
recIllisitc- ,...~ +-ì.-.~ fè.1l1 i n'i-72 3t i~0r3. t i:-) n -. ...... ,-.I
~ '/ .... i. 1 ~:.. '~ì. ll"·c\
:-.~ ;. n :-j i ~:t r.~ rat i c n :;f a..n\~ rn:3. t ~ :-:! t- ..\: i t. h i. ~-j i !""'. ~~
j i.l t- i. :~ d·i;~ t: i~) í'.. +- ,-.. -, :¡... J....,-='O c;~ f ~:; r~-= th2 p ~.. -\ '." ~1 _._ . L t r.:~
...- ~ ~ ....:~ '- _I.~, ,:.. - ...
Froc'ec~c1inJ ;
(;:: ) .. .- ,:;. d írì'; 0 i s.t e r ~>?. t h S ,~l n~:l Ct f f i 1.":n ,} t i ~~: :--.. s ;
L '-~'
(::- ) t,~ rec(".=11-.:re ~ _.,c¡ Ci c ~:~ c= pt. su:::;h evidence a~d
,~ (.:.JJ.....
.-
.
. r,. '..
.
36
information cn oath, affidavit or otherWlsc
-, ~ lt1 its disC'n~ti:)r: thE~ S.<')3.rd s ,~~= s flt,
t..:L..':)
whether admissible in a c::;urt of 1 a\..; c;." ,.....,.-,+-- .
~ 1. '-' '-- r
[rep. ,s, sub.. 197:::, ~ 1.3, s . 1 1
'- .
Also not2d by Mr. Swan, and to the same effect, were the
Labour Code of British Columbia, R.S.B.C. 1979, c.212, 5.
102(1) and the Alberta Labou~ Relations Act, R.S.A. 1geO, c .
L-1.1 as amended, which latter Act provides In 5.127(1);
If, in the opinion of an arbitrator or the chairman of
an arbitration board or other body,
(a) the attendance of a person ~s required, or
(bl the attendance of a person to produce a
document or other thing U3 necessary,.
he may cause to be served on the person concerned a
notice to attend or a notice to attend and pròduce a
document or other thing, as the case may be, signed by
the arbitrator or chairman.
Mr. Swan, in the Toronto Stat. case, concluded, at p.256,
that a "produce such documents"·clause was unnecessary to
grant that power specifically, a general power to issue a
summons being regarded as traditionally including the power
to ~ssue a subpoena duces tecum. See reference to Re Int'l
Onion of Operating Engineers Local 955 and Henuset Bros.
~ (1974), 49 D.L.R (3rd) 288, [1974J 6 W.W.R. 765 (,"ell ta.
S.C.T.D.) . The arbitrator also relied on the case of C a na. d ,3.
Cement LaFarge Ltd. and Qnited Cement, ·Lime & GY8sum t<Jç rkers
Int'l Uni~)n , Local 368, [19821 1 Can. L.R.B.R. 300, \\'here
the Board. at p.308 stated:
At the request of the Board and by letter dated April
2L 1981 counsel to eeL provided counsel t:) the' unions
with copies of the ' " eeL interìd(~d rely upon
lnvolclng t~,
'J
to establish its claim. In a number of recent cases
involving claims for substantial damages the Board has
entertained pre-hearing motions requesting production
I
of documents in great particularity. In granting these
requests, in whole Or in part, the Beard has nd ied
upon section 103 ( 2 ) (a ).. . .
ç'Ìt~ a'Jr¡.~(~ with the} r .J.. tic ~ ¡). 1 e :) f :1 r " Swan i nth e T:~ r:.'"J n t_ c St.::, 1"
2~S:~ (l(~~lling t~i·th the " p¡-()duc::e sl,lch d.ocum(;~~tsn c 1.3.uses
r~=f:=cred .to ,r Clnd hlS conclusions are afJI?licable in the case
b!·:f~)re u.s. The a.(lditi~)nal l03.ngu<Jq2 found In sc~:;tion 4.:/ ( 8 \ ~) f
tlv= Ontar io L;¡bcur R:~ 1 at iGrls .'\ct would not callse LlS t ..~
,~
,"::onc 1 ude t ha t we must interpr(:'t s(=ction ll(ll)(aì af th~-~
Crn'Nn Emplcy(::+es Col12ctive Bargaining Act In a manner trL;¡t
-~~~~-~-"
:
.' l' r.
.,.
37
would be least likely to do justice between the p.:lrties and
',vhich would f 1 ,. 10 trl;? ç-,-~ ,-, ~ -+-l......-, r:- r:2"i...~ 1. ~)ll S j u. r i S f' ~ \1 J .-~ n (~~ e ~:: f
-.1.,1 .L U ,-._ ~_. ..l- l___lj·._
this B~:ïa.rd 01 In I.:: ,."11- tiC" Ct 1 a.t· ( (..·./~-3 notc~ :1 t' . Swan's refeL~n~=::~-~' r at
pp. 257-8 of tb.~~ T:::ronto Star case, to tne inherent Fcr.~rf-:: .r to
:):"der procluc.t ion ~:~ £ ::locumen t s at a hearing \v he r e -t-- t....'::l, ')-._~ ' r·
..... .J..J.\~..., \_ -'.. .J
jurisdiction to Summons and enforce attendance of
witnesses. Any other interpretation would require an
immediate statutory amendment in order that justice could be
done in the majority of arbitration cases before this· Board
where production of documents are necessary in order for a
party to be able to properly prepare and present a case.
~"Je wou Ld add that 'J:: no other grounds were available to
l.L
decide between twö contended interpretations, ~vewould ¿dso
be influenced by the provlslons of sections 19(1) and ~O (8)
of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act which
provide:
19.--(1) Every collecti,ve agreement shall be deemed to
provide that In the event the parties are urla.b 1 e to
effect a settlement of any differences between them
arising from the interpretation, application,
administration or alleged contravention of the
agreement, including .¡-. as to whether a
any ques....lon
matter lS arbitrable, such matter may be referr-edfor
arbitration to the Grievance Settlement Board and the
Board after giving full opportunity to the parties to
present their evidence and to make their submissions,
shall decide the matter and its decision lS final and
binding upon the parties and t.he employees cc\re"red by
., the agreement.
20(8) The Griev.J.nce Settlement Board shall
determine its own practice and procedure but shall
give full opportunity to the parties to any
proceedings to present their evidence and to make
their submissions . . . .
In the absence of·the power to lssue a subpoena duces t (~cum
and order production of documents pursuant thereto, it
would, in many cases, be impossible for a party to have the
ful~ opportunity to present its evidence and make its
submiss ions so that' the Board could make a fair decisj,::>r:;. In
doing justice between the parties.
~'I;Je v;'.:".ll d ¢.ls'_~ nate. tr-u3-t s,:::~-~t i:)n 3'2(2.) ()f th~ r 1· :-~ 2 ~~l C: í':\ _ .,:-', f
In.f () rn1,1. t, j :.:.: n t~{ nd P-r~~~t ~~~c t j_~~ n ,~;f rJ r i \.. ~~{ ~:- '\~ i\ct,,1987, r:c t~ nì.~ t: s ......
Lr:~~t ituticJ:( t,; r1 iscl,;:~s2 "F':~ LS::l nal information .Ul ì . ... r- :::üst:):J',·
..._ t..::"',
~: C L~:-~ :j ::: 1: .:, -i--n C :) n t r~:: 1 tt \'ih,~ rt:.) ~ I- ~S If f:-; r th:;::: E; U .t:p',) S ~~ .--'" += :r'
! l.__J ~ '- -> ~ .~!..
C':~::r:~l~: 1 y in '] ~...¡ i t ~¡ ¡:-.1n ., ,'. +- of the .Lc~gl.slature cr an Ac t. or
,:-\..... '-"
P,J.r 1 i3.m·:~nt ~ .3. n ,3- '] r 2 e ffi.:::: n t ...... ... derangement. unde t" such ;:I.Li. ""et: ::'·1·
-> c
¿¡ treaty... " 'T b ~~ c :.) 1 1 e c t i "..¡- e a.gre<,~ment cct1w,¡een th(::: ¡::;èl 1:.- t i;~ s
.
.
.. fl .....
-'
.,
.- 38
is, In our VIew " agreement. . . .unè.(~r such an A::t. "
an
secfi·8n 7 cf th;-,: Ct...~J~·¡rL EInQl~J)~2~s CeIl r: ~ t i~r e E.J. ~ ~~~ ("1 i n i n -=i. '\~ I-
, '- ,
em!? 1 cyc:~ c;:-sanizatiGn aut her i 2 a t i:J n r -- carSCiln . t'
gIves 3.n '-'~ ~,,,' l .n
an employer with a. \71ê1".\i to concluding the C'~) 11 e(; t i ,;p t~
agreement. 'The procedure fer realIZIng thp C 0 11 ~~.:.:: ~ L \7 :::
agreement 15 provided for 1n the latter Act and section
19 (1) mandates arbitration prov1s1ons for ,effecting a final
and binding decision where the parties are unable to effect
"a settlement of any differences between them arising from
the interpretation, application, administration or alleged
contravention of the agreement. .. " In the absence of the
.
power 1n a Board to order production of documents pursuant
to a subpoena duces tecum, the purposes of section 19 ( 1 )
would, 1n many cases, rema1n unrealized. \'/e find that a
collective agreement under the Crown Employees Collective
Bargaining .Act represents such "an agreement. . . under sue [1
an Act" as IS referred to 1n section 32(e) of the Freedom of
Info:::-mation and Protec::tion of Privacy Act, 1987, and that
the disclosure of what would otherwise be impermissible
personal information uncle:::- the latter Act would be ~ermitted
as being for the purpose of complying with the previsions of
the collective agreement.
In a decision of Sidney B. Linden, the Information and
Privacy Commissioner, dated October 7,1988 being, Appea r
#880075-Re: Ministrv of the Atto~ney General, one of the
issues was: "Whether .the ratings and test results are
'personal information' as defined 1n subsection 2(1) of the
Act. It The case before· the Commissioner involved a request
by an unsuccessful applicant 1n a job competition. The
Ministrv of the Attorney General, as an institution u.nàe r
the .::"'ct, rece i Vet} a request from the appellant Ior acc;--=:::::s
to:
1.. On Februar~"'" 4, 1988, the Ylinist:rv' of the ..\t t.:"Jr~'~l"
General (the ., ins tit uti en" ) :::-ec<?ived a r-equ:-:st
f:):::-m the aprellant fer 3.2CeSS +- ~- .
'-'- .
"1. Rating of the succEssful candidate f'~ - the
'-'.I.
jeb competition #AG-1076B.
'1 Results of Data Entry for myself and the
- .
other successful candidate held In ::"2£er(~n.ce
+- ,-, job competition ;;:A.G-1076B,
'-'-'
-... ~ c t h :-? t· :r.?l~:\.-a_nt iG£crmati8n ~~~j.:~h
- ~ò"nv ~.\:;"3. s
,-~ .-., ..... ..... ~ rl ,-, ...... ,""- ,0·1 , " :-2 c t c ì.~ r:'¡ i 1.... a t 1_ G i'.. ~:~ f -J.,,-, r~ 1 ~ C ~-: ~~' :; S .:: ~ ~ 1
~ ~ ,__ i. 1 .:J ...:.... . J .:':'.J... \:'-, '_l ......1.. t_. ~ ~ . .'
c~n.dicL.te 1 '" jeb C=8ml,::~'tl t l8il =.\G-10768.
- ..
,1 hatin9 ( f .-d' m'{s21 f an(.l ,StIC C;.2 S s f:ll c'and i-::1,3 t.,~. )
-t . ..... '-' L
by A. Lomanginc ~"ho íl~Ci3 !?r;"2;s¡:::r'Lt at +-J.,,,
,_ ~:. r~
int~~r"'liew for .; r,]...... competiticn #".G-107Eß. If
J ~'>.J
----~- --~- -
I
.
:;- ., .
. .
39
""d- rating, a copy of her comments s h:) u 1 d t-.~
~ ~...... ...... J.-_"_
FrC~\·icL~::1" + .
'T'J...ù CCITc;ni s s i:-; nf= r found, -;- ~p. 7 I t ha t : "there lS ~~ Cllt2Sti~)rì
.J.. ..!. ~~_ ,-"'- 1 !.~....
tha.t h,~ t- h +- I"" ~ rat. i n lj S - ~ ,.:} the test results arc· 1 recorded
~-" ~.. '-.-- .. . '-- 111_ a'oJ
information about an identifiable individual' and as a
result fall within the definition of personal information
contained ~n the Act".
In the face of the denial of the appeal ~n the above case,
the Employer, ~n the case before us, was concerned about
releasing any information which would appear to fall under
the definition of personal information; "recorded
information about an identifiable i ndi vidua 1 ,n
For the reasons abov~ stated, we have concluded that for the
purposes of the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act,1987, the Employer would not be in violation "ç
~.L
that Act lD releasing documents to the Union for the purpOSf,?
of complyin'] '....ith the collective agreement, being an
a.greement under the Crown Emploì'ees Collective Bargaining
Act·· and representing one of the exceptions f ourid ~n section
32 (1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act.
~ve could not, of ccurset compel voluntary disc 1::: S1..1 re by th,::::
Employer. However, as we bave concluded that the Beard has
I the authority to ~ssue a. subpoena duces tecum and to order
the production of documents pursuant thereto, should the
-Employer not wish to' fellow the indication of cOllnsel In the
Tc~r::)nto Star casel set out at p.252, 'lueted ¡}b::)~~e , h"
}.-'!.
p2rmlttl:1g "!?re-hearing l? r-~duc t ion ('+ [relevant] d~) ~~.: U~"12 r:. tr S
;- ~, the un ion t; then the Union could lssue a snt!?(::e!""'~3 ::h¡::;C:r\S
'-'-'
t:~:-.:.urn an.d I lO ace ~J r" d a. n ;::; ~~ with the Or-der cf :\1 ¡"L Sb.l.~ìe , J a t~' ~;: :1
LJ...... .
January 10, 1991t above ref :=r reel t~~ , either pa,rty C 0 II 1 d fil:~
a request in writing with the Registrar prlcr tc th2 dat:~ c:t
the hean,ng containing its r.2(]Uest F,--......... an o rd(~ r of
~~'-
productìon. In such ca Sí= F th(:! 8nly remalnlng ob j I=ct. i,~)~s
that the Board could consider would be limited to such
,. . . matters relevancy, including that aspect of relevancy
as as
referred to by Mr. Swan ~n the Toronto Star case, at [1.259,
involving ". of·relevancy relation to the br:~3.dth of
lssues lO
a subpoena duces t,?cum, '1
Tf' the :::bjectiGo ;-~ !? roc1"Ll '2 t i <:) n ~f' the d::.~cuments [.:llr S"LLJ. n t 1""" ,-,
~.L ._....,.J '_I...L.. l~ ....
::.,};r; :; .\~.:..-~ f~C.; e n 3. .t~ e 1 d t e :; ~:-;cJ::}.l\~ t. (.J th;::: ììC:~(~'2S sit 1'- .~ ¡:: t: he l'~;:' J..,...,; ~n
~_n.:: ,;. I i ':J-
.-, ._ .-1 -, _, t:-'l:.r s ~.l,} r.... t t ~:. S::'I~_'t i:::;. ..... ~ ......, ~, ~ th.:=, F r ~~ ',~ ~:1 :::.~ IT: C f
~_, t -' .:.. '.~ ~ :. ..:.. : l.., ...:. ) '_'.1..
I nf()rrn.J,t iC}!1 and Pr:'";tect ìc~ of P i." i y. a. c-.: ì~ Act, then th:::- c rrl.:·? t~
~~J h .~' :.11, J l.S SU.? .~i ~ï. ;3 rr:.a. t t. i~ r ;")£ :. ~J. U. t- S {~ . Th sue r¡ .J. ~:.3.3,~~, t ~-l ;~~ 1::-::.:~
....tl
bí~in~'.J r!.:'::: 0i~~'::::l -r-..-... ..... .:\ £ i n.;i.l ,-L-:: to rmi n.3. t i~: n ,~:c; 1: ~) th·:-:; t~ ~:: .l ~:' ;:/ IJ. :.... :~' '/
-=..... ..~) '-
( i:1 h::th of tb8 sen.sc~; .r ~::) f í-:; r- 1" P d tcì ::;f s Ci rrÌí~ r-f' th:-:: ;] ~) ~~_. urn (:' n t ~~
,-'~
reques t ,~d, t h '0: r f-::; . ',,' 0 U 1 d b.'? no n,?ed to have a E ~:: rm'~i.l he,-;r ing
.
.
,~, p
-
.,
.
40
before such order could be issued.
. .
In ::-cda t ion to th,,? F-:~~\\¡~~~ r ~, .ç: the Board to o r..-} e r l:J r e - h ~~ ~3. r 1. n J
\........L.
production of d~)cuments , Mr. Swan, ~n the Toronto Star Ci3,Se,
stated at p. 258:
. . . Finally, I should .advert to a recent
unreported decision, Re Globe & Mail and Southern
Ontario NewspapeJ::' Guild . . . [dated] January 7,
1983 ( T e pI its ky) , in which the board of
arbitration dealt with pre-hearing production of
documents In the context of a grievance n::;t
unlike the present. At p. 5 , the award states:
"Finally, the guild sought ere-hearing
production of financial documents. This
board's· jurisdiction to make an order
for· production ¡vas raised. This lSSUE~
has been canvassed in a number of recent
.cases. A useful review of the
conflicting authorities may be found In
Re Canadian Broadcast Corp. and
C.U.P.E.., B'roadcast Division (1978), 18
L.A.C. (2d) 357 (Adams) . I think it fair
to state that the weight of recent
arbitral jurisprudence supports the
employer's position, namely, that a
board of arbitration lacks jurisdiction
to make an order for production. This lS
a Vlew which T do not shal:e. It seens to
.L
me that beards of arbitration make many
orders without ex!?ress statutory \-Jarrar¡t
which a.re necessary .tc ensure a fair
hearing to the parties. An order fat"
production, In my respectful opinio:l, IS
ivi thi n our jurisdiction whenever the
board lS satisfied that it is necessary
for purposes of a fair hearing. "
The comments made, above, at pp.24-25, with r,~spect to
sections 19(1) and 20(8) of the Crown Employees CG1I.~ctive
B.3. r 9 a i n ì n 'J Act and their influence en the power of th,,,:: B02.rd
I-~ lSsue .:; sub9-QßCla duces tecum f3.nd to order F!·oductio~ of
'- ,~
.~1::~~:~ UITl2n t: s [::U _r-;~ Ll-3.. n t thc:r:=::t::.: apt? 1 ~l f as w;~ll ! j-~ its r~ ~:~"i..v (-:: t- ~..--,.
~'. Ir",./
:.' ¡::Ie r F: ~ . (::' - h 2.J. L" i n '0 L.;rG~l~lct icn of :~ ::;c urnent s . \'\~he rr!: tI,c' ma v J, n '~¡
~,£ the c rd.~r t'¡3-S n~)t on consent, as h.3.s been in ::1 i C .:1 t (.\ d
.3- ;) ~:.: '<·T ,~: ~ tì~le IJa r t i r~ s r,¡I,¡~GU 1 d naT..7e full c f~I?C: l"t. Llrl i t '-:.;" 1- ~, pl·'Ó.'S{~nt
.- ~-'
Clr!~:'lm8nt on th2 J_ S I.:; ll.= S r~ fcv2n t t:J prcdu.cti8n. T~ th;~
..L. iL
,J.t;senc(~ of the pewer to.; crder pre-he3t'ing prc,duct. icn of
dccuments the result i'V'ould frequently be similair j-,~ the c;n~~
L.-~..;
--,_._~-... - ~-- -
.
:
'" ;~... '6-;
...
41
which so UFset the panel cf the Beard chaired 1:;1' M~ Samuels
~ .L ..
.1-rl th2 e,} t~ 1 ii?~ ~~l~=8ng ..-.. -.. ~,......:.
~__ L1 .~ '... .
Mr. S~.¡an , In th,=> 'T (.1 r ;:1 n t. :') Sta t· ~'-.) S (.' 1 .:.'1.1 :3C '\.-- ::~ l= -.;:. i""" r- ;::,¡, ....1 ( i b i ::~~ ) t-,-,
L .--.'"..t... \-r..... .. '_' ,...I., ~ M" '..1
th;= case 8f ' '" p~~ .-\ h,~ 1 et ,::,1.1 . a.nd Dir¡~2t,::r , F:-=:n2ta n1}U i s: h_i ni-::
~L
Ylental Health Centre; Re abel et al. and Advisorv Review
Board et a1- (1979) , 97 D.L.R. (3d) (Ont. Div. Ct. ) ; aff'd
119 D.L.R. (3d) 101 (ant. C.A. ) as glvlng "some oblique
support, to the existance of such jurisdiction. Mr. Swan
also noted ( ibid. ) that the board, in the Globe & Mail case,
did not rely on its jurisdiction to order pre-hearing
production but used the authority to lssue a subpoena duces
tecum.
As we have noted above, there would have been no need for us
to examlne the jurisdictional basis for the production of
documents under the Crown Employees Colec·tive Bargaininq
Act if the Employer was merely requesting an ordp-r based on
the consent of the parties to have such an order issued. The
request made to us lS a much different o n~~ . first, the
Employer took issue with the relevancy of some of the
Union's requests for production of documents. Second, the
Employer took the position that some of the documents
requested could not be produced except after r.ompliance with
the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection
of Privacy Act,1987. Third, the Employer did not take a
position, one way or the other, as to whether the Board had
jurisdiction to lssue an order for pre-hearing production of
documents or to i s.sue a subpoena duces tecum and to lssue an
order for the production of documents pursuant to the
subpoena so as to satisfy the requirements of section c::¡ I ') ,
.' .L , .. i
of ..\-...,. Freedom of Information and P rctecti:)n ~ç P .r i v· a ::" ::- ~-:\ c t: I
L- LL'_ 01..
1987:
The act dces not affect the power of . . . ð
tribunal to compel a witness to test i£:::r ,~ - C omf:c I
~.L
the production of docu.ments.
Throughout the hearin9, the Employer indicated its concern
that it might, unwittingly, violate the prOVlSlons of the
: 0" " ~.. latter Act and it wished to obtain some assurance that any
order for production issued by this Board was In complia.nce
with that Act. of necessity, this req'Jired us to consider
the jurisdiction of the Board to lSSU2 such an order ..3.S lS
r::,'fcrred to in SI~C't io n 51 ( ~ ) . Given its ri~J'Sl t lon, the
E ~n~:! 1::: \~.~ 1" 2\' ident 1 y concluded that it 2~)lll c1 û.(lt mer21y ,~t~: ~:~ 2 [jt
t ~": :~' j u .r i s;î i c ~ i.J :-~ ':;f tbf~ Doa.l-·d t.", .LSSU(" S :)("11 c:rders~ Tt: t h,:, r<,_'
, "-
S LlC h . .:l. . I- ¡., "" cf s:~c t i~~r~ ::1 .. ,) \ '. <=
hr,). S 0"-' .J Ll r l S:. _l C t l ~~: r: 1 FrC\.~lSl·:)nS
oJ I...,.. ~ ~ .__ ----,"-'-'
t h (~, 1 .~ t. t. ~~I r ,J.ct \\:cutd i:"ì. ~~: t. r~ r-;~ ~/ f~ n t its .) P P 1 ì ;~ a ~. i G ;, ). r~ t. ~ : i ~~~
::-.:t s;~ ~
i'llthGugh .'1r. Sh iP.ì2 S di r,=:ct i ve of J.3. n tla l-:l 10, l[)c)l, .3.ppe,:'\ r3
.,.
.
~. ~ I'-~';
"
"
42
to have been 1.0 response to the Employer's abc"'=,¡e st.ated
C(JlìC21-n 1 it n.)w apF~~/:;¡r s t::: U3 that the concern ",¡ent }) .-~ y ~~) r'~ ~1
the rne r \~ requirement sf an order be in,;] issued ¡.." - the Pea¡:::!,
.1'-' "
The Employer also seeks a.ssurance tha.t the maJi~ìng ~, <= , ,} !1
".":,,, ~;1..lC n
cr~:l(:~r 1.5 ,vi t h i n the jurisdic:ticr:. cf the Board.
Mr. Shime's directive, on its face,· could refer to an order
for pre-hearing production of documents,· or for the
production of documents pursuant to the 1.ssuance of a
subpoena duces tecum. In the latter case, the Employer might
request an order to produce documents pursuant to a
subpoena, should the documents not to produced at the
hearing. So as to avoid the delay referred to by Mr. Sa.muels
in the earlier CheoncJ case, an order could be issued, on
consent, prl.or to the hearing upon the subpoena being
issued. In the case before us, the request for an order does
nct not appear to follow upon the issuance of a subpoena. In
the absence of any dispute, where the Employer's only
concern lS to lnSure that ther,e ~s no violation of the
F;-eeC:c.m of Informaticr. and P r::::tect i~ìr1 cf D~iv~~v· ~~+ 1Q07
1: . I "-.- ~..... l~c' L] ~_I } ,
the parties may agree upon the documents to be produced
prior to the hear ing ·in accordance with Mr. Shime's
directive, without there being any need for a subpoena being
issued.
For the reasons stated . above, we are of the V1.2W that the
Board can lssue an order for the pre-"hearing production of
documents and can l.ssue a subpoena duces tecum and order the
production of documents pursuant thereto. Such orders for
production of documents are those envisaged within the
meanlD'3 ~~ section 51 ( :2) of the freedom of In!cr-matic.n 3.~d
,~ -'-
Qëotectiori of Privacv ,~ct <- 1987.
\";e are ~ç !-ho. ~,,:-l2~"'i that the abc",,-.-e c c~mme n t s are .3.pplic3.b12 r .~
,-'~ ....LJ,........ .... '-,
the case before us.
There was also an issue raised by counsel for the Employer
request particulars which was respcnded to ,
~:Cl1Cernlr~g (Ot f~'" oy
~~
rh." r 2 L~ c e s e n t ,:i :: i "¥,- ::; ;~·f t,lie C:licn. ~'Je feel that t h~~ ~m~~l~)y;~r :IJ' i 11
I~ L--.-
:1 ,-: t 1.'..-" ~.:.' t- e· j 1 ] d i :: (~ :.~ if :'--.: c~ L~: ;- (; \.~' ;~ :":~ ~j -I-- ._~ .¡. L, __. h ¿: c- ~- i ;),] :·T~ .f ~~ I.~, "-,' .~~ r ~. ...~: ~_~ ': ~: ~:. :~: ~:.
u'_:... '._ or' L_lil_
r,)r1 !: ~f=ir rn:3rit::5 tv i t 1-;.~::; u t th2 n ~'-= c 2 ~~ sit ~-:" :) £ ma.1(i r~IJ r~l ':'n'jS ~::- n -!-:-,-::.
.... ~.1. ,_
~l UC~ 3 t i Cl n cf I?d.rt leu l...-;;s at this t im:=~ ~ Should it t ransr:J.i ~-e at th~~
~~-------_.- -
;:.
- - 't 1
.
~... ........ ,.
.-1 ,
43
hearing that the Employer has been taken by surprlse because of
its inability to deal with matters because of a lack of c{~rLi.in
Farticulars, the matter can be .:1:=03. 1 t váth at that time a r1~~ .3-
necessary adjournment allowed. It will be in the interest of the
Union to see that this does not happen, as this will only further
delay the resolution of the grievances. We hope that the parties
will arrive at a reasonable accomodation with respect to the
Employer's request.
Dated at Toronto this 19th day of June. , 1991.
~..p;.-b · /..
-~ .'/
M. R. Gorsky - Vice ~hairperson
~Û~
ð· Carruthers - Member
--/
/ .
, I' '
. v, /
/ \ "...., I
(- {./..,.,. .''''' - /0// .-<'. /!1'7....
,q . Stapletoñ - Member