Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-0659.Gauntlett.07-03-14 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 Nj ~ Ontario GSB# 2006-0659,2006-0929 UNION# 2006-0546-0022,2006-0546-0030 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under 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 (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 March 5, 2007. Union Employer Vice-Chair 2 Decision [1] The parties have agreed that these two grIevances be heard together. The grievance dated March 17, 2006 (Board File 2006-0659) alleges: I have been unjustly denied access to the position of RTO Administrative Support Clerk under competition: 2675, 6276 and 6240. This act is a violation of sections 6.3 and 3.1 of the collective agreement. The grievance dated April 27, 2006 (Board File 2006-0929) 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 in both grievances is Appointment to the RTO Administrative Support Clerk position in North York or Mississauga. [2] In what follows I confirm and elaborate on directions given orally at hearing. This order supersedes my order of March 1, 2007 in Board File 2006-0929. [3] The employer shall produce to union counsel the competition files for the job competitions in issue. Production may be made by delivering copies, or by making originals available for inspection and copying by counselor his agent at a reasonable place at reasonable times, or by a combination of those methods of production. [4] Each of the parties shall provide the other with full written particulars of the allegations of fact on which it relies in these matters, together with copies of any documents in its possession, custody or power (and, in the case of the union, any document in the possession, custody or power of the grievor) on which that party may wish to rely in these proceedings. [5] With respect to each of the acts and omISSIOns alleged therein, each party's written particulars shall indicate what was done or not done, when, where, by what means and by whom, identifying by name any individual whose actions are being attributed to an organization. Conclusory statements based on unparticularized 3 allegations of fact are not sufficient. The allegations of fact set out in a party's particulars (exclusive of any conclusory statements or argument) should be sufficiently comprehensive that it would be unnecessary for that party to call any evidence if the opposite party were to admit that all of the allegations of fact therein were true. It is not necessary for a party to include in its particulars a description of the evidence by which it will seek to prove the facts alleged. It is not necessary for a party to identify in its particulars any witness to an event in question unless the presence of that person is a material fact on which the party relies. [6] Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the particulars provided by the union shall include particulars of any acts or omissions on which it relies to demonstrate that the conduct or outcome of the competitions, or the alleged refusal to renew the grievor's unclassified contract, constituted discrimination contrary to Article 3.1 of the collective agreement. [7] The union's particulars shall also set out the remedies it seeks with respect to each of the grievances. [8] The employer's particulars shall specifically identify the allegations in the union's particulars with which it agrees and the allegations with which it disagrees and, as to each allegation with which it disagrees, shall set out the version of the facts on which it relies in that regard. [9] In the event that the employer's particulars raise issues not addressed in the particulars delivered by the union, in reply the latter may deliver to employer counsel particulars of any additional allegations of fact on which it intends to rely in connection with those new issues and shall provide copies of any additional documents in its possession, power or control on which it may wish to rely with respect to those reply allegations. [10] The deadlines for compliance with these directions are as follows: a) The employer shall produce the competition files on or before March 23, 2007. b) The union shall deliver its particulars and copies of documents on which it may wish to rely shall be made on or before April 13, 2007. 4 c) Delivery of the employer's particulars and copies of documents on which it may wish to rely shall be made on or before May 11, 2007. d) Delivery of the union's reply particulars, if any, and copies of documents on which it may wish to rely in reply, if any, shall be made on or before May 23, 2007. These deadlines may be modified by agreement of the parties or by further order. [11] A party who fails to produce a document or provide particulars of an allegation in accordance with this order may not introduce that document or testimony about that allegation into evidence in these proceedings without leave. [12] The provisions of this order do not preclude an application by either party for further directions with respect to particulars or production of documents. Dated at Toronto this 14th day of March, 2007 (revised 15 March 2007). ~v Owen V. Gray Vice Chair