HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-0706.Bhandari.07-05-14 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# 2006-0706, 2006-0878, 2006-2854, 2006-2855, 2006-2856
UNION# 2006-0520-0002, 2006-0520-0005, 2007-0520-0001, 2007-0520-0002, 2007-0520-0003
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Bhandari)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Education)
Employer
BEFOREVice-Chair
Felicity D. Briggs
FOR THE UNION
Gavin Leeb
Barrister and Solicitor
FOR THE EMPLOYER Neil Hartung
Counsel
Ministry of Government Services
CONFERENCE CALL May 9, 2007.
2
Decision
Mr. Vinay Bhandari filed various grievances that are before this Board including
the most recent grievance alleging he was discharged without just cause. At the
first day of hearing into this matter the Union had certain disclosure requests, some
of which were not disputed by the Employer. At the hearing I ordered the
Employer to provide to the Union an unedited copy of the WDHP report and its
related documents. The Employer requested that my order be reduced to writing
and include a provision restricting the Union and the grievor?s use of these
documents. Specifically the Employer wanted it clear that the grievor and the
Union could only utilize the documents for the purposes of this hearing and that
they will otherwise not be distributed. The Union did not contest this request and I
so ordered.
Following our hearing date the Employer provided further documents to the Union
and asked that the same limitation apply. In one particular letter, dated September
29, 2006, the Employer wanted only certain underlined portions to be covered by
this order. The Union accepted limited use for most of the documents that the
Employer had provided. However, it was of the view that the entire letter of
September 29, 2006, should not be covered by the restricted use order. A
conference call was held to allow the parties to make submissions in this regard.
Mr. Leeb indicated that it was unlikely that either the Union or the grievor would
distribute the letter in whole or in part. However, it did not want to be foreclosed
from doing so. Mr. Hartung stated that the Employer was of the view that harm
could be done if use of the underlined portions of the document was not restricted.
It is not necessary for the purposes of this decision to set out the particulars of the
3
document. It is sufficient to say that, given the nature of the document, I
understand the concern of both parties.
After considering the submissions provided at the hearing and during our
conference call I am prepared to grant the Employer?s request. However, given the
nature of the document, in the event that the Union or the grievor wish to utilize
the letter beyond this restriction for reasons, it can seek leave from this
bona fide
Board to do so.
th
Dated in Toronto this 14 day of May, 2007.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair