HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-0491.SAMAROO98_11_30
ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO
1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 800, TORONTO ON M5G tZ8 TELEPHONEITELEPHONE (416) 326-1388
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 800, TORONTO (ON) M5G 1Z8 FACSIMILEITELECOPIE (416) 326-1396
GSB #0491/94
OPSEU 94B842
IN THE MA TIER OF AN ARBITRA nON
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Pubhc ServIce Employees Urnon
(Mohan Samaroo)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown III Right of Ontario
(Mirnstry of the Sohcitor General and Correctional ServIces)
Employer
BEFORE Owen V Gray Vice-ChaIr
FOR THE CraIg Flood
GRIEVOR Counsel
KoskIe Minsky
Bamsters & SoliCItors
FOR THE Jane Hooey
EMPLOYER Counsel, Legal ServIces Branch
Management Board Secretanat
HEARING November 19, 1998
DECISION
[1] The e'mployer has saId It WIll not be leadmg eVIdence wIth respect to Its
allegatIOns that the grlevor engaged m sexual ImpropnetIes agamst Annette
Quibbel and Patncla MItchell, nor wIth respect to the breach of secunty prOVI-
sIOns referred to m the dIscharge letter of May 19, 1994 The employer has led
the eVIdence on whIch It mtends to rely m support of ItS remammg allegatIOns
concermng the mIsconduct m respect of whIch the gnevor was convIcted and the
breach of trust that the umon concedes such mIsconduct would constItute If the
gnevor has commItted It.
[2] The umon proposes to present m the gnevor's defence eVIdence that he
dId not commIt the mIsconduct of whIch he was convIcted The matenal facts
whIch It says that eVIdence wIll establIsh have been set out m partIculars delIv-
ered pursuant to my order of October 23, 1998 The employer, however, proposes
to brmg a motIon, the detaIls and scope of whIch It has yet to work out, to the ef
fect that the umon's partIculars do not raIse any tnable Issue because they do
not raIse any Issue that the gnevor dId not put or could not have been put before
the court ("the criminal court'') that ultimately conVIcted him, and that the scope
of the umon's case should be limited accordingly
[3] Havmg heard the submIssIOns of counsel wIth respect to the dIrectIOns
they felt should be gIven m these cIrcumstances, on November 19, 1998 I dI-
rected, and hereby confirm, as follows.
a) The umon shall supplement Its partIculars
i) by IdentIfymg any allegatIOns of matenal fact m Its partIculars
whIch It contends were not put before the cnmmal court,
2
Ii) wIth respect to any such new allegatIOns, by mdlCatmg whether
and to what extent the eVIdence m support of those allegatlOns wIll
be eVIdence heard by the cnmmal court, and
ni) wIth respect to the remammg allegatIOns of matenal fact m Its par-
ticulars, by mdIcatmg whether and to what extent the eVIdence m
support of those allegatlOns wIll be eVIdence not heard by the
.
cnmmal court.
ThIS supplementary mformatIOn shall be provIded m wntmg and de-
lIvered to counsel for the employer and to the Board on or before De-
cember 15, 1998
b) The employer shall set out the nature of ItS motion m wntmg, notmg
partIcularly any Issues It raIses beyond the one Identified m paragraph
46 of my decIsIOn of September 14, 1998, and thIS descnptIOn shall be
delIvered to counsel for the umon and to the Board on or before Janu
ary 8, 1999
[4] Counsel agreed to make every effort to consult wIth each other d urmg the
week endmg January 15, 1999 concermng such matters as the exchange of
authontles relIed upon and the need for any addItIOnal dIrectIOns
Dated at Toronto thIS 30th day of November, 1998