Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-1443.Tardiel et al.08-07-17 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# 2005-1443 UNION# 2005-0530-0022 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Tardielet al.) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer BEFOREVice-Chair Christopher J. Albertyn FOR THE UNION David Wright, Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP, Barristers and Solicitors Eric del Junco, Barrister and Solicitor Donald McLeod, The McLeod Group, Barristers and Solicitors FOR THE EMPLOYER Lisa Compagnone Counsel Ministry of Government and Consumer Services HEARING June 27, 2008. 2 Decision 1.I have issued two previous decisions in these matters, on July 11 (?the first decision?) and on July 16 (?the second decision?), 2008. 2.This decision amplifies the first decision and it addresses a matter left over in the second decision. This decision is intended to give directions to the parties on: protections afforded to participants in the mediation-arbitration process the parties have undertaken; the scope of the grievances; and the principles that inform the second and third parts of the mediation-arbitration process described in the first decision. Principles informing the Proceedings on July 21 through August 1, 2008 3.There are serious rifts within the Toronto Jail. There appears to be a lack of mutual trust and confidence. There is clearly a need for individuals to air their concerns, and to be able to relate to their co-workers the experience they have gone through. However, once that it done, reconciliation between management and employees and between employees, and restitution, are required to restore a work environment that is fair, respectful, efficient, and free from discrimination and harassment. There is a need for understanding, not vengeance; a need for restoration, not retaliation; a need for reconciliation, not victimization. Those who have suffered need those with whom they have worked to understand their suffering. They need to be freed of the burdens they have carried, in some cases alone and for a long time. Those who have been falsely accused need to be able to express the torment of such accusations. Those who have made accusations need to understand the impact. The institutional parties need to prevent future abuses. A moral beacon must be established between the past and the future. The parties need to be able to move forward in a new environment and they need to do so rapidly. The current environment has existed for far too long. 4.The process described in the first decision is aimed to address this situation and these needs. The mediation-arbitration process requires considerable frankness and honesty from each of the grievors, and from all required to participate. Those who have been tormented or who have suffered need to be able to put words to their experiences. The process must aim to repair harmful rifts within the organization of the Toronto Jail. Those who have acted inconsiderately or abusively towards others need to be able, individually, to admit doing so, to apologize, to endeavour to renew their work relationships, without fear of retribution. The process is for reconciliation, not blame. No Liability for Statement Made by Participants in the Proceeding 5.To break with the unhealthy patterns of the past, individuals need to be able to speak freely of their experiences, their hardships, their fears, and their aspirations. Candor is an essential requirement of the process. Those involved should be able to feel comfortable doing so, without risk of liability or litigation. The process of reconciliation described in the first decision ? a process that is vital to repair damaged relationships at the Toronto Jail ? requires that those who make a genuine effort to understand what has gone wrong, and what needs to be done, 3 should not risk harm or liability by speaking candidly and by expressing their views frankly and honestly. 6.To these ends, there will be no litigation of issues arising directly, indirectly or inferentially from the mediation-arbitration process. Those required to participate in this process necessarily waive any entitlement to sue any other participant or to claim any compensation from any other individual for any statement made by them during the course of the mediation- arbitration proceedings. There will be no penalty for candor. Furthermore, I am seized of all of the issues arising from what has been described as a poisoned workplace at the Toronto Jail, including any issues arising from this mediation-arbitration process. Any such issue will be addressed through this mediation-arbitration process. 7.Furthermore, those who come forward to speak in the second part of the mediation- arbitration process will be entitled to bring with them and have with them present, during the second part, persons they wish to have with them in support, subject to my direction. Decision Concerning Disclosure of Documents 8.The focus of the inquiry in the first and second parts of the mediation-arbitration process, as described in the first decision, will be to understand individual experiences, to hear of individual impressions and perceptions. The aims, particularly in the third part of the process, are to address the various, sometimes competing, conceptions of what has gone wrong, and to determine what is needed to remedy the situation. Given this focus and these aims, I am not persuaded at this stage, or until the third part of the process is complete, that any disclosure of documents will serve the purposes of the mediation-arbitration process, as described in the first decision. I therefore deny the pending requests for documentary disclosure. It may be, at a later stage in the process, that some documentary disclosure will be necessary. In that event, either party may revive a request for production of documents and I will consider the request at that time. Attendance of Morrison and Bazgar 9.A matter outstanding from the second decision is whether Hayton Morrison and Hamza Bazger will attend the second and third parts of the process. I have carefully considered the submissions made to include or exclude one or other of them, and I have decided that they will both attend, Mr. Morrison as part of Group A and Mr. Bazger as part of Group B. Dated at TORONTO on July 17, 2008 Christopher J. Albertyn Vice-Chair