GSB# 2006-0706, 2006-0878, 2006-2854, 2006-2855, 2006-2856
UNION# 2006-0520-0002, 2006-0520-0005, 2007-0520-0001, 2007-0520-0002, 2007-0520-0003
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Bhandari)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Education)
Employer
BEFORE
Felicity D. Briggs
Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
Gavin Leeb Barrister and Solicitor
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Neil Hartung Counsel Ministry of Government Services
CONFERENCE CALL
May 9, 2007.
Decision
Mr. Vinay Bhandari filed various grievances that are before this Board including the most recent grievance alleging he was discharged without just cause. At the first day of hearing into this matter the Union had certain disclosure requests, some of which were not disputed by the Employer. At the hearing I ordered the Employer to provide to the Union an unedited copy of the WDHP report and its related documents. The Employer requested that my order be reduced to writing and include a provision restricting the Union and the grievor’s use of these documents. Specifically the Employer wanted it clear that the grievor and the Union could only utilize the documents for the purposes of this hearing and that they will otherwise not be distributed. The Union did not contest this request and I so ordered.
Following our hearing date the Employer provided further documents to the Union and asked that the same limitation apply. In one particular letter, dated September 29, 2006, the Employer wanted only certain underlined portions to be covered by this order. The Union accepted limited use for most of the documents that the Employer had provided. However, it was of the view that the entire letter of September 29, 2006, should not be covered by the restricted use order. A conference call was held to allow the parties to make submissions in this regard.
Mr. Leeb indicated that it was unlikely that either the Union or the grievor would distribute the letter in whole or in part. However, it did not want to be foreclosed from doing so. Mr. Hartung stated that the Employer was of the view that harm could be done if use of the underlined portions of the document was not restricted. It is not necessary for the purposes of this decision to set out the particulars of the document. It is sufficient to say that, given the nature of the document, I understand the concern of both parties.
After considering the submissions provided at the hearing and during our conference call I am prepared to grant the Employer’s request. However, given the nature of the document, in the event that the Union or the grievor wish to utilize the letter beyond this restriction for bona fide reasons, it can seek leave from this Board to do so.
Dated in Toronto this 14th day of May, 2007.