HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-3564.Herskovits.07-02-01 Decision
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas Sl. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
reglement des griefs
des employes de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. : (416) 326-1388
Telec. : (416) 326-1396
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
Nj
~
Ontario
GSB# 2004-3564
UNION# 2004-0599-0009
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
BETWEEN
BEFORE
FOR THE UNION
FOR THE EMPLOYER
HEARING
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Herskovi ts)
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Mini stry of Finance)
Barry B. Fisher
Nelson Roland
Barrister and Solicitor
Janice Campbell
Counsel
Ministry of Government Services
January 29, 2007.
Union
Employer
Vice-Chair
2
Decision
On December 22, 2006 counsel for OPSEU made a request of counsel for the Ministry of
certain documents. We had a hearing on these issues on January 29,2007. This is my ruling. I
will use the same numbering system as was used in Mr. Roland's letter to Ms Campbell of
December 22,2006.
1. Time Summaries: As a key component of this case is the grievor's allegation that the
new guidelines in the PDP relating to the number of audits completed in a year were unfair, I
order that the Union be provided with the grievor's Time Summaries for the time covered in the
2003 and 2004 performance review periods.
2. ITAS: As this report shows the number of audits completed by the grievor, I order that
the Union be provided with the grievor's ITAS for the time covered in the 2003 and 2004
performance review periods.
3. The grievor wants production of his PDP's and PMCP's for 1999, 2000 an 2001. He
has them for the more recent years. I cannot imagine why we need to go back this far given the
issues in this case, so I decline to order this item.
4. Minutes ofDAC meetings. At this stage it seems that this is a fishing expedition to try
to find something out about how the Ministry came out with these guidelines. Without prejudice
to the Union's right to request this at a later time if the Ministry leads evidence as to how they
came up with these guidelines, the request is refused.
5. Trends in number of audit files. As this is an individual grievance (granted there are
about 84 different individuals with the same grievance) I fail to see how this information will be
helpful in deciding whether this performance review system was, for the 2004 review year,
discriminatory to this employee. I have already ordered that the relevant data of completed audits
for this grievor be produced. This request is denied at this point in the proceeding, without
prejudice to the Union's right to request this at a later time if the Ministry leads evidence as to
how they came up with these guidelines.
6. Emails re CTAS problems. The grievor will apparently testify that during this period
there were computer problems that limited his work output and therefore his number of
completed audits. Let us wait to see if the Ministry seeks to contradict the issue of the email
problem before we see if this type of production is necessary.
7. Training Presentation. This is relevant and is to be produced.
8. Minutes of Managers meeting. This is another fishing expedition. Request denied.
9. Data on completed audits. Again as I said above, so far this is irrelevant as we do not
know whether the Ministry even relied on such data in setting the performance criteria. If they
did, then I may revisit this issue, but for now it is denied.
3
This case will proceed as scheduled on February 6, 2007.
Dated at Toronto this 1st day of February 2007.
:v