Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-2536.Moreau.05-07-28 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# 2002-2536 2002-2537 UNION# 2002-0582-0073 2002-0582-0070 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (Moreau) Union - and - The Crown In RIght of Ontano (Mimstry of Commumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer BEFORE Barry Stephens Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION Nelson Roland Barnster and SOlICItor FOR THE EMPLOYER Len HatzIs Counsel Management Board Secretanat HEARING June 6 2005 2 DeCISIon The employer bnngs a motIOn to dIsmIss the gnevances before the board on the grounds that the gnevor has faIled to comply wIth the order from thIS board dated January 11 2005 whIch reqUIred the exchange of partIculars pnor to the resumptIOn of heanngs Into the two gnevances The employer argues that the order had been breached, In that the gnevor faIled to supply partIculars wIthIn the stIpulated tIme penod, and, In addItIOn, as of the June 6 2005 heanng, had not provIded full partIculars of senous allegatIOns In the alternatIve the employer seeks an order that the gnevor must provIde full partIculars wIthIn one week, and be precluded at the heanng from adducIng eVIdence related to facts that are not partIculanzed. ThIS case was ongInally set down for heanng on January 5 2005 No explanatIOn was provIded as to why partIculars of the allegatIOns were not provIded In advance of that heanng. Be that as It may the ongInal board order reqUIred the gnevor to provIde partIculars by February 25 2005 Although the board was not advIsed, the employer agreed to at least two extensIOns to thIS deadlIne, such that the partIculars were reqUIred by Apnl 4 2005 The employer was not provIded wIth partIculars by Apnl 4 2005 Mr HatzIs sent a letter to umon counsel on Apnl 15 2005 statIng that the employer took the posItIOn that the order had been breached, and that It would seek an order dISmISSIng the gnevances The umon subsequently sent the employer two letters, dated Apnl 21 and Apnl 29 2005 In whIch It set out some but not all of the partIculars wIth respect to the two gnevances The employer pOInted out that the gnevances allege, among other thIngs, that employer representatIves delIberately mIsled W S.I.B officIals about a claim filed by the gnevor that the employer " purposely [SIC] wIthheld " and, " refused to supply " knowledge and 3 InfOrmatIOn about the gnevor's, " eXIstIng condItIOns " and that the employer knowIngly allowed the gnevor to be subJect to " constant harassment and targetIng by mImstry officIals over the years" The employer asserted that, If one reVIews the letters provIded by the umon after Apnl 4 2005 no partIculars have been provIded wIth respect to the alleged false statements, wIthheld InformatIOn, or years of harassment, even though the gnevor had been provIded wIth ample tIme to provIde such InformatIOn. The umon argues that the allegatIOns In the gnevances are of a senous nature and should not be dIsmIssed, partIcularly gIven that the gnevor alleges that the employer's actIOns had a negatIve Impact on hIS health. The umon has provIded as much InformatIOn as It can WIth respect to the partIculars, and It would be Inappropnate to dIsmIss the gnevances, gIven the senousness of the Issues at stake The umon submIts that the best manner In whIch to proceed IS to allow the gnevor to take the stand and tell hIS full story In hIS eXamInatIOn In chIef In thIS way the employer can be appnsed of the full facts and, If the employer needs tIme to prepare for cross- eXamInatIOn, the heanng can be adJourned to allow for such preparatIOn. In the alternatIve, If the board wIshes to proceed by ordenng the gnevor to provIde more detaIled partIculars, then the umon would reqUIre more than one week, as suggested by the employer FInally the umon submIts that the letters of Apnl 21 and 29 2005 are sufficIent, and that the heanng can proceed on the basIs of the InformatIOn set out In the letters DECISION After gIVIng careful consIderatIOn to the facts and the submIssIOns of the partIes, It IS my conclusIOn that the heanng should proceed on the basIs of the partIculars supplIed In the letters of Apnl 21 and 29 2005 4 An order was Issued by the board on January 11 2005 settIng a deadlIne for the gnevor to provIde full partIculars wIth respect to the two gnevances The employer for Its own reasons, agreed to at least two extensIOns to the deadlIne, ultImately gIVIng the gnevor untIl Apnl 4 2005 to provIde the InformatIOn ordered by the board. PartIculars were provIded two weeks after the final extensIOn had passed. Although I am troubled by the fact that the gnevor provIded no explanatIOn for hIS faIlure to submIt tImely partIculars, partIculars were provIded, albeIt approxImately two weeks after the deadlIne I had consIdered dISmISSIng both gnevances outnght. However weIghIng all of the relevant factors, It IS my VIew the heanng should proceed, gIven the nature of the allegatIOns In the letters, and the fact that the InfOrmatIOn, although untImely was provIded wIth sufficIent tIme for the employer to prepare for the June 6 2005 heanng date However there IS no need to allow for further tIme for the provIdIng of further partIculars The events that are alleged In the gnevances are alleged to have occurred pnor to November 28 2002, and In some cases "years" pnor to that date ThIS case was slated to begIn January 4 2005 The gnevor had sufficIent tIme to prepare and present the detaIls of hIS allegatIOns pnor to the ongInal heanng date However the partIes agreed to adJourn the January heanng pendIng the exchange of partIculars The gnevor was provIded wIth one deadlIne by the board, and then two extensIOns were granted by the employer In my VIew reasonable opportumty has been allowed for the gnevor to set out the detaIls of hIS complaInt sufficIent to permIt the employer to prepare ItS case In all of the cIrcumstances, It IS reasonable to conclude that the letters of Apnl 21 and 29 2005 should constItute the partIculars for these gnevances, and that the heanng should proceed based on the allegatIOns partIculanzed In those letters 5 The partIes are dIrected to prepare to present eVIdence and arguments on the allegatIOns set out In the Apnl 21 and 29 2005 letters when the heanng reconvenes Dated a Toron.o thIS 28th day of July 2005 I