Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-P0097.Ronkai.00-04-11 Decision ~. -l- --~-.=------.~~- .. r..... ~....~ ,- PSGB # P/0097/98 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT Before THE PUBLIC SERVICE GRIEVANCE BOARD BETWEEN Zoltan RonkaI Grievor - and - The Crown m Right of Ontano (Mirusm of the Sohcltor General and CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer BEFORE John A. Willes Vice ChaIr FOR THE Chnstopher Pool GRIEVOR RepresentatI ve FOR THE Laura Wilhams, Staff Relanons Officer EMPLOYER Lmda Stevenson, Staff Relanons Officer Mirusm of the SOhCltor General and Correcnonal ServIces HEARING Ma, 13 1999 June 16, 1999 October 5 1999 INTERIM DECISION The grIevance m tills matter relates to a workplace DIscnmmatIOn And Harassment Complamt filed by the Gnevor, Zoltan Ronkm on September 7, 1998 Accordmg to the eVIdence, the gnevor's complamt states as follows "Mr Duffield would not allow me to work on September 7, 1998, because I was on workplace accommodatlOn as per doctor '51 orders due to a W S.I B injury (dzsabzlzty) " A hearmg on the gnevance was scheduled for May 13, 1999, at willch tIme the Gnevor dIscovered that the person presentmg the Employer's case at the heanng was Lmda Stephenson, a Staff RelatIOns Officer m the MIll1Stl)' of the SolIcItor-General and CorrectIOnal ServIces The Gnevor objected to the Staff RelatIOns Officer bemg a part of the Employer's team on the basIs that she had acted as ills 'AdvIsor' m the preparatIOn of ills Workplace DIscnmmatIOn and Harassment Complamt. The case concernmg the Gnevor's ObjectIOn contmued on June 16, 1999, and October 5, 1999, and on both days testImony was heard from the partIes 2 pertammg to theIr mteractIOn m matters related to the Gnevor's formal complamt under the Workplace DIscnmmatIOn and Harassment PreventIOn Pohcy The Gnevor's eVIdence was that Lmda Stephenson worked m the capacIty of an InvestIgator at the Independent InvestIgatIOns Umt of the MImstry of the SohcItor -General and CorrectIOnal ServIces Tills umt was responsible for the mvestIgatIOn of complamts filed under the Workplace DIscnmmatIOn and Harassment PreventIOn Pohcy, and the Gnevor testIfied that he had contacted Ms Stephenson wIth hIS complamt and dIscussed the matter wIth her, behevmg the dIscussIOn would be StrICtly confidentIal HIS mtentIOn was to call Ms Stephenson as a wItness on hIS behalf The Gnevor expressed concern that certam mformatIOn that he provIded to Ms Stephenson IS now m the hands of the MImstry, and Ms Stephenson IS now m a posItIOn where she IS actmg on behalf of the Employer m the conduct of the Employer's case before thIS Board. The Gnevor submIts that Ms Stephenson IS now m a posItIOn of conflIct of mterest, and to allow her to proceed as the Employer's representatIve would be Improper, and a demal of natural JustIce In hIS 3 VIew, tills Board should dIrect the Employer to remove Ms Stephenson from the case Counsel for the Employer submItted that Ms Stephenson was not m a posItIOn of conflIct of mterest while m her role as an InvestIgator m the Independent InvestIgatIOns Umt. Counsel noted that Ms Stephenson's eVIdence was that she provIded the Gnevor wIth general mformatIOn about the complamt procedure, and made no assessment of the ments of the Gnevor's claim. Counsel also noted that Ms Stephenson had testIfied that she had receIved only a vel)' bnef outlme of the Gnevor's complamt from the Gnevor m a telephone conversatIOn, and the mformatIOn she (Ms Stephenson) provIded m her capacIty as an InvestIgator was a response that could also have been provIded to the Gnevor m her capacIty as a Staff RelatIOns Officer Counsel also noted that Ms Stephenson was never assIgned to the case as an InvestIgator Counsel for the Employer submItted that no conflIct of mterest eXIsted on the part ofMs Stephenson m her role as Staff RelatIOns Officer Counsel argued that tills Board dId not have the authonty to remove the Employer's representatIve from the case, as Ms Stephenson was not actmg as Counsel, and dId not act m such a 4 capaCIty m her dealIngs wIth the Gnevor as an InvestIgator m the Independent InvestIgatIOns Umt. Counsel's posItIOn was that no SolIcItor-clIent relatIOnshIp eXIsted between the Gnevor and Ms Stephenson, and no conflIct of mterest therefore eXIsted. In support of her arguments, Counsel for the Employer referred to G Mornson and the Crown In RIght of Ontano (Human RIghts CommlsslOn) P/0037/95 (P S G.B ), MacDonald Estate v Martzn [1990] 3 S C.R. 1235, Kuzack v Babcock Estate (1991) 5 O.R. (3d) 650 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ThIS Board has carefully revIewed the submIssIOns of the partIes on the matter of Ms Stephenson actmg as the Employer representatIve m the case now before the Board. In hIS submIssIOns, the Gnevor has urged thIS Board to remove Ms Stephenson as the Employer representatIve on the basIs of conflIct of mterest and a demal of natural JustIce WIth respect to hIS gnevance 5 The PublIc ServIce Act, R. S 0 1990 c.P-47 and the RegulatIOns related thereto make no specIfic reference to the authonty of thIS Board to remove Counsel or any other person as a representatIve from a case, but the general oblIgatIOn of thIS Board to conduct a fair hearmg may very well vest thIS authonty m the Board where It can be shown that a party Improperly obtamed confidentIal mformatIOn from theIr now adversary pnor to the heanng. Such would be the case If the Gnevor had retamed Counsel ImtIally , only to find ills Counsel was later actmg for the Employer ThIS, however, IS not the sItuatIOn m the case before thIS Board, although the events that took place are of some concern wIth respect to confidentIalIty Accordmg to the eVIdence, the Gnevor dId engage m conversatIOn wIth Ms Stephenson m her role as an InvestIgator m the Independent InvestIgatIOns Umt under the ImpressIOn or m the belIef that ills dIscussIOn of ills gnevance would be kept confidentIal The eVIdence also mdIcates that much of the dIscussIOn was concermng procedural matters While Ms Stephenson's eVIdence was that no confidential mformatIOn was Imparted to her by the Gnevor, the Gnevor mamtamed that thIS was not the case, although hIS eVIdence dId not IdentIfY specIfic 6 mformatIOn that was clearly confidentIal or detnmental, If dIsclosed to the Employer In fairness to the Gnevor, however, he was attemptmg to recall a conversatIOn that took place many months pnor to the first hearmg day On the eVIdence before thIS Board, there would appear to be no mformatIOn m the hands ofMs Stephenson that mIght be charactenzed as confidential to the Gnevor's case, and thIS Board under the CIrcumstances IS not prepared to dIrect the removal ofMs Stephenson as an Employer representatIve However, If, as the case IS heard on ItS ments, the eVIdence reveals that Ms Stephenson was m fact the recIpIent of confidentIal mformatIOn from the Gnevor, tills Board IS prepared to reVIsIt the Issue at that tIme, and take whatever steps may be necessary to ensure that the Gnevor IS not demed natural JustIce m the resolutIOn of ills gnevance Dated at Toronto thIS 11th day of April 2000 ~ ......... John A. Willes, Q C , Panel Chair 7