HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-3120.Giraudy et al.06-06-27 Decision
Commission de
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
règlement des griefs
Board
des employés de la
Couronne
Suite 600 Bureau 600
180 Dundas St. West 180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396 Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2004-3120, 2004-3121, 2004-3865, 2004-3952, 2004-3954
UNION# 2004-0234-0658, 2004-0234-0659, 2005-0234-0023, 2005-0248-0006, 2005-0248-0008
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Giraudy et al.)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFORE Vice-Chair
Ken Petryshen
FOR THE UNION Gavin Leeb
Barrister and Solicitor
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Suneel Bahal
Counsel
Ministry of Government Services
HEARING
June 20, 2006.
2
Decision
At a hearing on June 20, 2006, after entertai ning submissions on a disclosure issue, I
ruled orally at the hearing that the Union was entitled to the documents that it had requested.
Counsel for the Employer requested that I provide written reasons for the ruling.
The incident giving rise to grievances occurred on June 10, 2004. The three grievors, a
Provincial Bailiff and two Correctional Officers, were transferring inmates by bus to CNCC in
Penetang. While stopped at a traffic light in Waverley, an inmate escaped using a door at the
back of the bus. At the time of the escape, the three grievors were in the front of the bus, leaving
no one in the rear staff compartment. The Employer relies on more than one ground to support
the discipline issued to the grievors. One of th e grounds is that the grievors failed to exercise
proper supervision of in-transit inmates. In pa rticular, the Employer alleges that the grievors
were at fault because one of them was not stationed in the rear staff compartment of the bus. The
Provincial Bailiff was discharged and the two Correctional Officers were each suspended for 160
hours.
The Union has indicated that one of the posit ions it will take is that the grievors were
subject to discriminatory treatmen t. Counsel for the Union advised that he understands that three
officers transferring inmates by bus during the summer of 2005 were all in the front part of the
bus and for this reason were issued letters of counsel. The Union requests that the Employer
provide it with the letters of counsel issued for that incident. While acknowledging that the
event giving rise to the letters of counsel occurred after the incident for which the grievors were
3
disciplined, counsel for the Union submitted that the documents the Union sought were arguably
relevant to one of the issues in dispute.
In opposing the Union?s request, counsel for the Employer advised that the Employer is
prepared to stipulate that the three officers involved in the 2005 in cident were issued letters of
counsel for failing to station one officer in th e rear staff compartment of the bus. Counsel
submitted that producing the letters of counsel is unnecessary and would not provide any benefit.
Counsel also expressed a concern about the privacy interests the three officers who received the
letters of counsel may have.
The Employer did not claim that the timing of the letters of counsel made them irrelevant
and it was prepared to stipulate the facts giving rise to them. In my view, the documents the
Union requested are arguably releva nt to an issue in dispute and the Union is entitled to see the
documents. I am also of the view that the three officers who received the letters of counsel do
not have a privacy interest that would preclude the production request from the Union. It is for
these reasons that I directed the Employer to provide forthwith the letters of counsel to the
Union.
th
Dated at Toronto, this 27 day of June, 2006.
Ken Petryshen ? Vice-Chair