The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1999-1001.Pickett McCormick Holden.03-03-28 Decision Crown Employees Commission de ~~ Grievance Settlement reglement des griefs Board des employes de la Couronne ~-,... Suite 600 Bureau 600 Ontario 180 Dundas Sl. West 180 rue Dundas Ouest Toronto Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Telec. (416) 326-1396 GSB#1001/99 1002/99 1224/99 1357/99 1565/99 1566/99 1567/99 1820/99 2019/99 UNION#99B854 99B855 99E121 99D119 99D120 99D121 99D122 99D203 99D204 99D205 OODI13 00A154 00A155 00A156 00A157 00A158 00A159 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (PI ckettIMcC ormI ck/Hol den) Grievor - and - The Crown In RIght of Ontano (Mimstry of CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer BEFORE Damel A Hams Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION John BrewIn Ryder Wnght Blair & Doyle BarrIsters and SOlICItorS FOR THE EMPLOYER Len HatzIs Counsel Management Board Secretanat HEARING March 18 2003 2 Intenm Order [1] ThIS matter came on for heanng on March 18 2003 at whIch tIme the folloWIng order was gIven orall y [2] The employer makes applIcatIOn to dIsmIss portIOns of the Instant gnevances or In the alternatIve, to preclude the umon from callIng eVIdence of certaIn allegatIOns of fact because of the umon's faIlure sufficIently to partIculanze the facts upon whIch It relIes In the further alternatIve, It seeks an order for partIculars [3] The areas of concern may be summanzed as beIng allegatIOns of dISCnmInatIOn, harassment and a pOIsoned work envIronment pnor to May 23 1999 beIng the date on whIch the central allegatIOns relatIng to the treatment of Inmate "C" occurred. [4] At the heart of the employer's concern IS the lack of specIficIty of the facts set out In S 17 of the umon's Statement of PartIculars dated November 8 2001 whIch reads as follows 17 The actions of the management described in paragraphs 9 to 15 were in part motivated bv a discriminatory attitude towards Mr Pickett. Mr Pickett suffers from a form of cerebral palsv It causes him to noticeablv limp In the earlv stages of his emplovment at Metro East he e.\.llerienced significant hazing from staff, including supelVisors. He was led to believe that many supelVisors did not think he was capable of perfonning his duties in the institution. This discrilninatorv attitude was a factor in the discipline that was set aside bv the panel chaired bv William Kaplan. In fact, Mr Pickett proved to be an excellent correction officer After his reinstatement, Mr Pickett continued to experience negative attitudes from representatives of the emplover Others who were members of the classes set out in Article 3 1 of the Collective Agreement and the Ontario Human Rights Code, also experienced discrilnination at the institution, discriInination that management did not deal with effectivelv There was also evident bias against those who exercised their rights to grieve or otherwise challenge management. [5] The form of partIculars contemplated by the Gnevance Settlement Board IS set out In Ross and the Ministry of Correctional Services 2002 GSB #2690 96 et al. at page one as follows Having regard to those sublnissions and the positions of the parties, the Board herebv directs that the union provide particulars of the facts on which it and the grievor relv specificallv with respect to grievances alleging discrilnination, unfair treatment or other generalized allegations. These written particulars are to include not merelv legal conclusions but, in addition, the facts which the union and the grievor assert support any such conclusions and demonstrate the discrimination or breach of the collective agreement alleged. With respect to each act or omission alleged, the particulars shall indicate what was done or not done, when, where, bv what means and bv whom and, to the extent motivation mav be a relevant factor, with what motivation. [6] The reference In S 17 to "The actIOns of the management descnbed In Paragraphs 9 to 15 " IS to a senes of factual allegatIOns that largely meet the form of partIculars expected by the Board. The balance of S 17 does not, on ItS face, conform to those expectatIOns [7] The employer commumcated ItS demand for further partIculars to the umon by letter dated November 20 2001 The matter of partIculars came to a head a year later on the last day of heanng In thIS matter beIng November 22,2002 At the close of that day the umon was about to 3 call eVIdence of the dIsputed areas of S 17 Counsel for the employer undertook to reVIew the partIculars furnIshed to that date and request further partIculars If so advIsed. Shortly thereafter counsel for the employer renewed Its request of November 20 2001 The umon provIded a form of further partIculars on March 5 2003 UnsatIsfied wIth that response, the employer bnngs thIS applIcatIOn. [8] These proceedIngs have been qUIte protracted. The central IncIdent took place In May 1999 Although the request for partIculars IS long standIng, It should be noted that there were no heanng days between November 19 2001 and November 18 2002 Illness and other dIsruptIOns resulted In a number of lost heanng dates In the cIrcumstances, It would be Inappropnate to dIsmIss portIOns of the gnevances or preclude the callIng of specIfic eVIdence Of first Importance IS to hear the dIspute between the partIes Fairness reqUIres that the umon be gIven an opportumty to call ItS case, and that the employer know the case It has to meet. [9] As In Simon et al and the Ministry of Correctional Services 2001 GSB # 1390 00 and Ross (supra) the allegatIOns here Include dISCnmInatIOn, harassment and a pOIsoned work envIronment. Such allegatIOns often reqUIre a broad scope of eVIdence However as In KlonoYf,ski et al and MinistlY of Finance 2002 GSB # 179999 claims of dISCnmInatIOn should not be developed as the case proceeds, but should be partIculanzed In a cnsp and clear fashIOn. [10] AccordIngly the umon IS ordered to provIde partIculars of the facts upon whIch It Intends to rely In the form set out In Ross above Such partIculars are to be delIvered to the employer on or before March 21 2003 and shall dIrectly respond to the employer's request dated November 20 2001