Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-1588.Patterson.07-04-23 Decision Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board Commission de reglement des griefs des employes de la Couronne Nj ~ Ontario Suite 600 180 Dundas Sl. West Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Bureau 600 180, rue Dundas Ouest Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tel. : (416) 326-1388 Telec. : (416) 326-1396 GSB# 2003-1588,2004-1041,2004-1552,2004-1553, 2004-3489, 2004-3490, 2004-3491, 2004-3492, 2005-0714,2005-0715,2005-1492 UNION#2003-0608-0018, 2004-0618-0006, 2004-0618-0010, 2004-0618-0011, 2004-0618-0018, 2004-0618-0019, 2004-0618-0020, 2004-0618-0021, 2005-0618-0027, 2005-0618-0028, 2005-0618-003 8 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Patterson) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Children and Youth Services) Employer BEFORE Randi H. Abramsky Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION Elizabeth Nurse Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Barristers and Solicitors FOR THE EMPLOYER George Parris Counsel Ministry of Government Services HEARING April 16, 2007. 2 Decision On January 23, 2007, I issued a decision regarding the production of documents. One of the matters decided was the Union's request for "documentation recording Compassionate/Special Leave days and Compensating Time off (CTO time) granted to CO Staff at CFYC August 2003 to January 2006." I denied that request, "subject to [the Union's] ability to make a further request relating to any specific incident of compassionate/special leave which it claims to be relevant due to similarity of circumstance." In so ruling, I relied on OPSEU (Tone) and ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services (2000), GSB No. 1996-2693 (Dissanyake, Vice-Chair). On April 16, 2007, the Union renewed its request for production of these documents since it had provided the Employer with a list of seven names of employees that it asserted were granted special/compassionate leave for "family reasons." Only one of the individuals listed had the specific reason stated - the health of a spouse. The others were just names, only one of which had dates listed beside it. The Union submitted that this met its obligation to provide specific claims of compassionate/special leave which were relevant due to similarity of circumstance and justified requiring the Employer to provide the originally requested documents. In the alternative, the Union sought leave to canvass the bargaining unit to more precisely identify similar situations as the list it provided was only a preliminary list. The Employer opposed the Union's request. The Union's renewed request for the production of documentation recording compassionate/special leave granted to CO staff between August 2003 and July 2006 3 misperceives my earlier ruling. What I decided was that if the Union could point to particular incidents which were similar to the grievor's situation, it might be entitled to disclosure - of those incidents - not wholesale disclosure of all requests for special/compassionate leave in a given time period. The idea was that if the Union could identify others whom it believed were treated differently from the grievor, based on similar circumstances, then it would be entitled to disclosure of those requests for special/compassionate leave. The question thus becomes whether the Union has provided enough information to be entitled to disclosure regarding the special/compassionate leave for the seven named individuals. In my view, the answer is no, except for the one individual for whom the reason for the leave was identified. Merely stating the request was for "family reasons" is insufficient. The words "family reasons" are very broad and do not, by themselves, establish any "similarity of circumstance." Nor, in my view, should the Union be provided with additional time to canvass the bargaining unit to find "similar" situations. To allow that would essentially sanction a "fishing expedition" to determine if there is a basis to claim discrimination. When the grievance was filed and the allegation of discrimination was made, there must have been some basis upon which that claim was made. The Union cannot make the claim, and then seek to find examples to establish discrimination which is what appears to be happening here. Accordingly, the Union's request is denied, except for the one individual for whom the reasons for the request were identified. In so ruling, I do appreciate the difficulty for the grievorlUnion in determining the basis for other employees' requests for special/compassionate 4 leave. But when a claim of discrimination is made, there has to be some basis for the claim. It cannot be established through a fishing expedition. Issued at Toronto this 23rd day of April, 2007.