GSB# 2003-1588, 2004-1041, 2004-1552, 2004-1553, 2004-3489, 2004-3490, 2004-3491, 2004-3492, 2005-0714, 2005-0715, 2005-1492
UNION# 2003-0608-0018, 2004-0618-0006, 2004-0618-0010, 2004-0618-0011, 2004-0618-0018, 2004-0618-0019, 2004-0618-0020, 2004-0618-0021, 2005-0618-0027, 2005-0618-0028, 2005-0618-0038
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Patterson)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Children and Youth Services)
Employer
BEFORE
Randi H. Abramsky
Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
Elizabeth Nurse Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Barristers and Solicitors
FOR THE EMPLOYER
George Parris Counsel Ministry of Government Services
HEARING
January 15 & 16, 2007.
Decision
The Union has requested an order for production of documents. All matters, except for two categories of documents, were agreed upon by the parties. This Decision deals with the two matters upon which the parties were unable to agree.
Facts
There are twelve grievances before the Board, alleging a variety of claims. One of the claims is that the grievor, a female Correctional Officer, has been discriminated against in regard to her assignments because of her gender. She alleges that she was regularly assigned to work in the female inmate cottage, which left her unavailable for escorts and Control as well as overtime opportunities in those areas. In her particulars, she has cited a number of examples of this type of alleged discriminatory assignment.
In connection with this claim, the Union seeks to have the Employer produce the following records:
CFYC [Cecil Facer Youth Centre] Main schedule for all staff (cottages and main control) Aug 2003 to January 2006.
CFYC Staff Allocation Sheets, Aug 2003 to January 2006.
CFYC Staff Duty Assignment sheets Aug 2003 to January 2006.
CFYC Log Books for all Cottages, Control Office and the S.I.U. Aug. 2003 to January 2006.
CFYC Overtime Log Books and sheets for Control Area – August 03 to January 2006.
CFYC Staff Escort Log Book August 2003 to January 2006.
During argument, counsel for the Union conceded that the overtime log books (request #8), went to remedy and agreed that those records did not have to be produced at this time. The documents in Request #4 involve an annual schedule. There are daily records for Requests #5 and #6, and the Union is seeking copies of them. In terms of Request #7, the Log Books for all Cottages, Control and S.I.U., the Union acknowledges that these log books are voluminous and would agree to access to them, instead of copies. In regard to Request #9, the Staff Escort Log Books, the Unions submits that there is one book per year and is seeking copies of them.
The second issue regarding documents involves the Union’s request for “[d]ocumentation recording Compassionate/Special Leave days and Compensating Time Off (CTO) granted to CO staff at CFYC [from] Aug 2003 to January 2006.” Due to privacy concerns, the Union is willing to have identifying information blanked out. These documents, according to the Union, relate to a grievance filed on December 24, 2004, in which the grievor alleges that the Employer’s refusal to grant her Compassionate/Special Leave, when her father was having surgery was discriminatory.
Position of the Parties
The Union argues that the first group of documents are “arguably relevant” to the Grievor’s claim of discriminatory assignments. It submits that the documents relate directly to an issue in dispute – that is, the alleged pattern of discriminatory assignments, based on gender. It asserts that the documents are arguably relevant and that there is a clear nexus between the documents requested and the particulars provided by the Union, that they are sufficiently particularized and do not constitute a fishing expedition. It also asserts that there is no undue prejudice caused to the Employer by their production. In support, the Union cites to Ontario Liquor Board Employees’ Union and Ontario Liquor Control Board (Koonings Grievance) (2006), GSB No. 2003-3101(Gray, Vice-Chair).
The Employer asserts that it is not sufficient to assert that there is a pattern of discrimination and then demand documents to determine if a pattern exists. Yet, the Employer contends, that is exactly what the