Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-2689.Sojak et al.04-01-23 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# 2002-2689 2002-2702,2002-2772 UNION# OLB026/02, OLB023/02, OLB024/02 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano LIqUor Control Boards Employees' Umon (Sojak et al) Grievor - and - The Crown In RIght of Ontano (LIqUor Control Board of Ontano) Employer BEFORE Jamce Johnston Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION Craig Flood Koskie Minsky LLP BarrIsters and SOlICItorS FOR THE EMPLOYER Jason Shore Heenan BlaIkIe LLP BarrIsters and SOlICItorS HEARING January 20 2004 2 DeCISIon ThIS case deals wIth three gnevances whIch have been filed by the umon allegIng that the employer's practIce of schedulIng employees to work alone from SIX p.m to mne p m. on Fnday evemngs IS a vlOlatlOn of ArtIcle 32 1 of the collectIve agreement, whIch provIdes that "the Employer shall contInue to make every reasonable provlslOn for the health and safety of ItS employees " At the arbltratlOn heanng held on January 20 2004 the partIes raised several prelImInary motlOns As thIS case contInues on January 27 & 28 2004 the turnaround tIme for thIS decISlOn IS extremely bnef AccordIngly thIS declslOn wIll be bnef Counsel for the umon has requested that we take a VIew In thIS case ThIS motlOn IS opposed by the employer After consldenng the submlsslOns of the partIes, and In applYIng the factors artIculated In the arbItral junsprudence to the somewhat umque CIrcumstances of thIS case, I feel that It IS appropnate to take a VIew Health and safety Issues have been raised In thIS matter In partIcular Issues have been raised wIth regard to the physIcal settIng In whIch employees work. It may of assIstance to me In assessIng these concerns both on an ObjectIve and sUbjectIve basIs to actually see the work envIronment and the area surroundIng thIS workplace The partIes are agreed that If a VIew IS to be taken that It should be done In the evemng, as that cOIncIdes wIth the relevant tIme It IS not gOIng to be possIble to take a VIew In the evemng when thIS matter contInues next week. However It should be possIble to do so In the future, as It IS hIghly unlIkely that thIS matter wIll fimsh In the two days we have scheduled next week. The tImIng of the VIew can be dIscussed and determIned when we reconvene next week. 3 Umon counsel has requested productlOn of documents from the employer To a large extent counsel for the employer has agreed to provIde the umon wIth the documents requested. However the umon has requested and the employer has resIsted the productlOn of documents that do not relate to the specIfic work locatlOn at Issue In thIS case The documents at Issue are set out under pOInts number 4 5 and 7 In the umon's letter dated January 6 2002 Due to tIme constraInts, I am not gOIng to set them out, as the partIes know what they are HavIng consIdered the submlsslOns of counsel In thIS matter It IS my VIew that It IS not appropnate to order the employer to produce the documents sought by the umon for stores other than the one at Issue In thIS case, subject to thIS one qualIfier The store In thIS case IS a "D" store If documents pertaInIng to an IncIdent at another "D" store eXIst, they may be relevant to the case before me and the employer IS dIrected to provIde them AssumIng such documents eXIst, the employer may not be able to find them and produce them before the heanng contInues next week. If It IS at all possIble, counsel for the employer IS to do so as they may be relevant to the Issues before me If the kInd of general surveyor study referred to In pOInt # 5 eXIsts, counsel for the employer IS dIrected to provIde them to umon counsel The request for documents for retaIl stores other than Store 567 In pOInt #7 IS too broad and beyond the scope of the case before me ThIS request for productlOn IS demed. Counsel for the employer has requested certaIn partIculars from counsel for the umon. If counsel for the umon Intends to call eVIdence wIth regard to any specIfic IncIdents whIch have occurred In the workplace or In close proxImIty to the store other than IncIdents that the employer IS already aware of that have caused employees to fear for theIr health and safety then detaIls of these IncIdents must be provIded to counsel for the employer so that he IS aware of the case he 4 must meet and can prepare accordIngly Umon counsel IS not reqUIred to name hIS wItnesses nor must he provIde the eVIdence by whIch he Intends to prove hIS case Dated at Toronto thIS 23rd day of January 2004