Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-0929.Gauntlett.07-03-01 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# 2006-0929 UNION# 2006-0546-0030 THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT BETWEEN BEFORE FOR THE UNION FOR THE EMPLOYER TELECONFERENCE Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Gauntlett) - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Mini stry of Finance) Owen V. Gray Gavin Leeb Barrister and Solicitor Michelle Dobranowski Counsel Ministry of Government Services February 28,2007. Union Employer Vice-Chair 2 Decision [1] The grievance before me was filed on April 27, 2006. In it, the grievor alleges: Statement of Grievance. Michelle Jeanes & Mariola Pachura unjustly discriminated against me when they refused to re-new my contract. This act is a violation of sections 3.1 of the collective agreement. The relief sought is Appointment to the RTO Administrative Support Clerk position in North York or Mississauga. I am told that the contract referred to was an unclassified contract, and that the specific positions sought by way of remedy for the alleged discrimination are classified positions that are currently occupied. [2] In October 2006 the parties agreed that I would hear this grievance on Monday, March 5, 2007. In early November 2006, employer counsel wrote to the union's representative in this matter asking for particulars and disclosure of documents relied upon. Having had no substantive response despite a series of follow.up telephone and email messages and conversations with union representatives, on February 23, 2007 employer counsel asked that the Board schedule a telephone conference with me to deal with her request for particulars and productions. On February 26, 2007, the union's representative agreed to a telephone conference on February 28, 2007. On February 27, 2007 the union retained counsel to represent it in this matter. [3] During the telephone conference union counsel made no objection to providing employer counsel with written particulars of the facts on which the union intends to rely and copies of any documents on which it may rely, on the terms in which I usually frame such obligations, by the close of business Friday, March 2, 2007. I so directed orally, and in what follows confirm that direction. [4] I direct that the union provide the employer with full written particulars of the allegations of fact on which it relies in this matter, together with copies of any documents in its possession, custody or power or in the possession, custody or power of the grievor on which the union may wish to rely in these proceedings. Without limiting 3 the generality of the foregoing, the particulars provided shall include particulars of any acts or omissions on which the union relies in these proceedings to demonstrate that the employer's alleged refusal to renew the grievor's unclassified contract constituted discrimination contrary to Article 3.1 of the collective agreement. [5] With respect to each act or omission alleged, the union's particulars shall indicate what was done or not done, when, where, by what means and by whom. Where conduct attributed to the employer or the union, the particulars shall indicate who is alleged to have so acted its behalf. Conclusory statements based on unparticularized allegations of fact are not sufficient. The allegations of fact set out (exclusive of any conclusory statements or argument) should be sufficiently comprehensive that it would be unnecessary for the union to call any evidence if the employer were to admit that all of those allegations of fact were true. It is not necessary for the union to include in its particulars a description of the evidence by which it will seek to prove any of the allegations of fact set out. It is not necessary for a union to identify in its particulars any witness to an event in question, unless the presence of that individual is a material fact on which the union relies. [6] The union's particulars shall set out the remedies sought with respect to the grIevance. [7] The union's particulars and documents shall be delivered to employer counsel by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, March 2, 2007. [8] If the union fails to produce a document or provide particulars of an allegation in accordance with this order it may not introduce that document into evidence or tender evidence about that allegation in these proceedings without leave. [9] The provisions of this order do not preclude an application by either party for further directions with respect to particulars or production of documents. [10] In the course of the telephone conference it emerged that notice had not been given to the incumbents of any of the positions that the grievor seeks by way of remedy in this proceeding, not to anyone who may have made a competing claim to any of those positions in other proceedings before the Board. I directed that the union forthwith give appropriate notice of the grievor's claim in these proceedings to all such third parties. 4 This direction was without prejudice to any claim by anyone entitled to such notice that the notice actually given was too short or otherwise inadequate, nor does it reflect any prejudgement of the question whether the grievor's claim to those positions can proceed on March 5, 2007, or at all, if it transpires that someone entitled to timely and otherwise adequate notice of the claim had not by then received it. Dated at Toronto this 1st day of March, 2007. ~v Owen V. Gray Vice Chair