GSB# 2113/02

UNION# 2002-0999-0035

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Union Grievance)

Grievor

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Public Safety and Security)

Employer

BEFORE

Nimal V. Dissanayake

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

John Brewin Ryder Wright Blair & Doyle Barristers and Solicitors

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Andrew Baker Counsel Management Board Secretariat

HEARING

March 12, 2003.

DECISION

The union filed a union grievance dated December 2, 2002. The statement of grievance reads: “The employer has violated specifically, but not exclusively, articles 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 46 and Appendix COR 4 of the collective agreement with regards to the vacation protocol.”

On March 12, 2003 the parties appeared before me to deal with an application for interim relief pending the determination of the grievance on its merits. The union is in essence seeking an order that the employer cease the vacation protocol it had recently implemented and revert to the protocol in effect before the change, pending the determination of the merits of its grievance. The union provided to the employer a two page document titled “Union case summary re Application for interim relief.” The employer took the position that this document lacked sufficient particulars and sought an order directing that further particulars be provided so as to enable it to defend its case against the application for interim relief.

Having regard to the fact that the particulars sought are in relation to an application for interim relief, and having considered the submissions of the respective counsel, as well as the legal authorities cited, it is ordered as follows:

(1) The union shall provide the employer with written particulars as to each and every violation of the collective agreement and/or statute it relies on to establish an arguable case in support of its application for interim relief. As part of these particulars, the union shall set out each provision alleged to be violated; which acts and/or omissions resulted in each alleged violation; and when, where, and by whom (if the allegation is directed to an individual(s)) the alleged violation was committed.

(2) The union shall provide to the employer particulars of each circumstance it intends to rely on to establish the adverse impact it says will result, if the interim relief sought is not granted.

(3) The union shall provide to the employer particulars as to the facts it relies on to support its estoppel argument. This shall include particulars as to what representations (conduct or statements) were made, by whom, to whom, and when; what detriment it suffered as a result of reliance on such representation.

(4) The particulars ordered in paragraphs (1) (2) and (3) above shall be provided to the employer in writing no later than March 21, 2003.

(5) The employer shall provide union with particulars of the facts on which it intends to rely in response to the allegations set out in the union’s particulars. The employer shall identify in its particulars the union allegations with which it agrees, the union allegations with which it disagrees and where it disagrees with any union allegation, provide the version of the facts on which it relies.

(6) The employer shall provide to the union particulars of each circumstance it intends to rely on to establish the adverse impact it says will result, if the interim relief sought by the union is granted.

(7) The particulars ordered in paragraph (5) and (6) above shall be provided to the union in writing no later than April 4, 2003.

In the event either party has concerns that the particulars provided by the other do not comply with the Board order, that concern must first be raised with that party within 3 days of receipt of the particulars. If the issue is not resolved, the Vice-Chair may be contacted to obtain a ruling in advance of the hearing scheduled for April 14, 2003.

The time lines set out herein may be varied by agreement between the parties. A party who fails to provide particulars in compliance with this decision may be precluded from adducing evidence with regard to that matter.

The hearing of this application is adjourned to April 14, 2003.

Dated this 13^th day of March 2003 at Toronto, Ontario.