GSB# 2005-0910, 2005-0911, 2005-0917, 2005-2360

UNION# 2005-0234-0134, 2005-0234-0135, 2005-0234-0141, 2005-0234-0268

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Premji et al.)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)

Employer

BEFORE

Marilyn Nairn

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Scott Andrews Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Rena Khan Staff Relations Officer Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services

HEARING

November 21, 2005.

Decision

Through these grievances, the union, on behalf of four grievors, is challenging the awarding of six Nurse 2 positions following the posting of an open competition on April 13, 2005. All of the grievors and all of the successful candidates were unclassified employees at Maplehurst Correctional Complex at the relevant time. The union seeks production of the competition file. The employer is prepared to provide access to that file save and except for the names of the candidates who participated in the competition, on the basis that a privacy interest exists in respect of candidates’ identities, and, that the remaining information should be sufficient for the union's purposes.

I am not persuaded that there is a privacy interest to be protected in a challenge to the awarding of positions in an open competition. No authority was cited for such an interest. There can be no expectation of privacy in circumstances where an employee applies for a posted position and it is clear that the posting contemplates a competitive process as between applicants and that the awarding of the posted position(s) is subject to challenge through the grievance and arbitration process. The purpose of the posting process is to ensure the open and transparent awarding of positions on the basis of the relevant criteria. Even if I were to assume some privacy interest, (which I do not) it is not absolute. The awarding of the positions has been challenged by the filing of the grievances. The test for production of documents is whether or not the material is arguably relevant to the issues in dispute between the parties. At the very least, the union shares an obligation to advise successful applicants that the awarding of the position has been challenged and that their interest might be affected. Where the union is challenging the competitive process, all information relating to the competition is arguably relevant.

I therefore direct the employer to forthwith produce the competition file in its entirety to the union. I will remain seized with respect to any issue arising out of the implementation of this interim order.

Dated at Toronto this 24^th day of November, 2005.