GSB# 2004-3120, 2004-3121, 2004-3865, 2004-3952, 2004-3954
UNION# 2004-0234-0658, 2004-0234-0659, 2005-0234-0023, 2005-0248-0006, 2005-0248-0008
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Giraudy et al.)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFORE
Ken Petryshen
Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
Gavin Leeb Barrister and Solicitor
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Suneel Bahal Counsel Ministry of Government Services
HEARING
June 20, 2006.
Decision
At a hearing on June 20, 2006, after entertaining submissions on a disclosure issue, I ruled orally at the hearing that the Union was entitled to the documents that it had requested. Counsel for the Employer requested that I provide written reasons for the ruling.
The incident giving rise to grievances occurred on June 10, 2004. The three grievors, a Provincial Bailiff and two Correctional Officers, were transferring inmates by bus to CNCC in Penetang. While stopped at a traffic light in Waverley, an inmate escaped using a door at the back of the bus. At the time of the escape, the three grievors were in the front of the bus, leaving no one in the rear staff compartment. The Employer relies on more than one ground to support the discipline issued to the grievors. One of the grounds is that the grievors failed to exercise proper supervision of in-transit inmates. In particular, the Employer alleges that the grievors were at fault because one of them was not stationed in the rear staff compartment of the bus. The Provincial Bailiff was discharged and the two Correctional Officers were each suspended for 160 hours.
The Union has indicated that one of the positions it will take is that the grievors were subject to discriminatory treatment. Counsel for the Union advised that he understands that three officers transferring inmates by bus during the summer of 2005 were all in the front part of the bus and for this reason were issued letters of counsel. The Union requests that the Employer provide it with the letters of counsel issued for that incident. While acknowledging that the event giving rise to the letters of counsel occurred after the incident for which the grievors were disciplined, counsel for the Union submitted that the documents the Union sought were arguably relevant to one of the issues in dispute.
In opposing the Union’s request, counsel for the Employer advised that the Employer is prepared to stipulate that the three officers involved in the 2005 incident were issued letters of counsel for failing to station one officer in the rear staff compartment of the bus. Counsel submitted that producing the letters of counsel is unnecessary and would not provide any benefit. Counsel also expressed a concern about the privacy interests the three officers who received the letters of counsel may have.
The Employer did not claim that the timing of the letters of counsel made them irrelevant and it was prepared to stipulate the facts giving rise to them. In my view, the documents the Union requested are arguably relevant to an issue in dispute and the Union is entitled to see the documents. I am also of the view that the three officers who received the letters of counsel do not have a privacy interest that would preclude the production request from the Union. It is for these reasons that I directed the Employer to provide forthwith the letters of counsel to the Union.
Dated at Toronto, this 27th day of June, 2006.