HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-2440.Grievor.19-10-25 DecisionCrown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2016-2440; 2016-2443; 2017-1794; 2017-3718
UNION# 2017-0368-0001; 2017-0368-0004; 2017-0368-0385;
2018-0368-0011
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Grievor) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Health) Employer
BEFORE
Ian Anderson
Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION
Ed Holmes
Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP
Counsel
FOR THE EMPLOYER Regina Wong
Treasury Board Secretariat
Legal Services Branch
Counsel
HEARING October 16, 2019
-2-
INTERIM DECISION
[1] Having regard to the representations of the parties, I make the following case
management directions:
1. With respect to the employee named in paragraph 70 (hereafter “Employee
70”) of the Union’s particulars dated October 23, 2018 (the “Union’s
particulars”), the Employer is ordered to produce to the Union a copy of all
portions of the medical records in its possession in and a copy of any other
documents which are arguably relevant to the accommodation of that
employee on straight days.
2. The Employer is to provide redacted copies of all other medical records in
its possession in relation to Employee 70 for the period during which
Employee 70 was accommodated.
3. To the extent that the Employer redacts documents or portions of
documents in the medical records, sufficient information shall be left non-
redacted to disclose the general nature of the redacted documents or
portions.
4. If the Union does not accept that the redactions have been limited to
matters not arguably relevant, it shall promptly give notice of its
challenge(s) to the Employer. The Employer shall forthwith provide the
Arbitrator with non-redacted copies of the challenged documents for
comparison with the redacted copies. The Arbitrator will determine what
further portions of the documents, if any, shall be produced in a non-
redacted form to the Union.
5. All medical records produced by the Employer are subject to the following
confidentiality order:
(a) The parties to the arbitration are directed:
i) to comply with the following directions;
ii) to direct their agents, officers, employees and counsel
comply with the following directions; and
iii) to obtain the agreement of any third party to whom
they might properly give any of the documents that
such third party shall comply with the following
directions.
(b) With respect to the use of the medical records produced for
inspection by the Employer, all parties are directed to follow these
requirements:
-3-
i) all documents are to be kept confidential as among
the parties;
ii) no copies are to be made of any document except for
the purpose of the arbitration of this grievance;
iii) no copies are to be circulated to third parties, except
as necessary for the conduct of the arbitration of this
grievance, and once that purpose has been
completed the copies are to be retrieved from the
third parties;
iv) the documents are to be used for the purposes of this
arbitration only and for no other or improper purpose;
v) all copies of all documents are to be destroyed or
returned to the provider of the documents at the
conclusion of this arbitration and any judicial review
proceedings arising out of the arbitration, save for one
copy to be retained by each counsel in their file.
6. With respect to the employee named in paragraph 69 of the Union’s
particulars (“Employee 69”), for the purposes of the grievances before me
the Employer has stipulated that Employee 69:
• Was in receipt of an accommodation within the meaning of the
Human Rights Code for a number of years, and that this
accommodation included work on day shift.
• There is no material difference between that employee’s need for
accommodation and the Grievor’s need for accommodation.
Rather, the Employer’s position is that the basis for the distinction
between its treatment of the Grievor and Employee 69 relates to
differences in the two different CACCs at which they are employed.
The Employer is directed to produce to the Union any documents
which are arguably relevant to the basis for the distinction between
its treatment of the Grievor and Employee 69.
7. On the agreement of the parties, the issue of remedy shall be bifurcated
from the merits of the grievances.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 25th day of October, 2019.
“Ian Anderson”
______________________
Ian Anderson, Arbitrator