Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-0007.Amurao.12-03-09 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#2010-0007, 2010-0029 UNION#2010-0542-0010, 2010-0542-0009 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Amurao) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community and Social Services) Employer BEFORE Joseph D. Carrier Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION Sheila Riddell Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Barristers and Solicitors FOR THE EMPLOYER Jennifer Richards Ministry of Government Services Labour Practice Group Counsel CONFERENCE CALL February 10, 2012. - 2 - Decision [1] The Grievance before me alleges that the Grievor, Ms. Fidela Amurao, who was employed with the Family Responsibility Office of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, was terminated without just cause. [2] Counsel for the Employer brought forth the current motion with respect to two preliminary issues: 1. disclosure 2. particulars [3] The Vice Chair heard submissions from both Counsel regarding these issues by teleconference on February 10, 2012. Disclosure [4] The Employer seeks certain documents it alleges are arguably relevant to the above-noted arbitration hearing. By way of background, in a letter dated February 22, 2010, Ms. Nancy Liston, Director of Client Services, outlined to Ms. Amurao the reasons for her dismissal. Those reasons identified inappropriate conduct including the following: You obtained a mortgage on December 23, 2008, knowingly used a falsified pay stub indicating that you were an employee of Freedom Mortgage and Financial Solutions earning $75,000 a year, created on your behalf at the request of your manager. This is a violation of the Ministry Standards of Conduct (Standard #5: Lawful and honest conduct). [5] The Union takes the position that the Grievor was unaware of the existence of the fraudulent pay stub in question. In light of the Union’s position, the Employer seeks disclosure of any mortgage applications, along with any and all accompanying documents, and any agreements of purchase and sale for all properties for which the Grievor was approved for a mortgage between September 2008 and December 2008 including but not limited to for her current residence of 31 Piggott Mews. Decision re: Disclosure [6] I have considered the submission of Counsel and am satisfied that the documents sought by the Employer are not only relevant to the ultimate issue to be decided but also go to the heart of that matter. Accordingly, the Employer’s request for a disclosure order is granted as follows: the Grievor shall produce any mortgage applications, along with any and all accompanying documents, and any agreements of purchase and sale for all properties for which the Grievor was approved for a mortgage between September 2008 and December 2008 including but not limited to for her current residence of 31 Piggott Mews. [7] Given the upcoming hearing date of April 23, 2012, the Employer requests that the disclosure be provided no later than March 23, 2012. The time line requested by the Employer is - 3 - appropriate in the circumstances. The Union shall provide the disclosure to the Employer no later than March 23, 2012. Particulars [7] The Parties first appeared before me on August 3, 2011. In a decision dated August 11, 2011, I ordered the Union to provide particulars of the Employer conduct, if any, which is alleged to have been discriminatory and/or in any way a violation of the collective agreement or the Ontario Human Rights Code. Those particulars are to set out the who, what, where, when and how the impugned employer conduct is alleged to have taken place. No date for delivery of the said particulars to the Employer was provided in my order. If the parties were unable to determine the time frame themselves, they could contact me to prescribe an appropriate deadline. [8] Again, the Employer requests that the particulars be provided no later than March 23, 2012. Decision re: Particulars [9] The time line requested by the Employer is appropriate in the circumstances here. Therefore, the Employer’s order is granted. The Union shall provide the particulars to the Employer no later than March 23, 2012. Dated at Toronto this 9th day of March 2012. Joseph D. Carrier, Vice-Chair