GSB# 2006-1367
UNION# 2006-0220-0008
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Adams)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Children and Youth Services)
Employer
BEFORE
Felicity D. Briggs
Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
Tim Hannigan Counsel Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Felix Lau Counsel Ministry of Government Services
CONFERENCE CALL
July 25, 2008
Decision
A teleconference was held to address a number of issues arising from the grievance of Ms. Amber Adams. The grievor alleges that the Employer has failed to provide her with an appropriate accommodation. Prior to the beginning of the litigation into this matter the grievor will be undergoing an Independent Medical Evaluation.
The parties had an opportunity to review the disputes and make submissions during a recent teleconference. At that time there was discussion between the parties about the extent of the information to be provided to the IME. The grievor felt that there were some particular documents regarding the working conditions that should be included and the Employer was agreeable to her suggested additions. I am therefore assuming that there are no outstanding matters regarding the information to be sent to the IME in this regard. In the event I am wrong about this, I should be notified.
I will set out my ruling on these matters without reasons. If requested, reasons can be addressed in my final decision. After consideration I order the following:
Ms. Adams’ general practitioner can provide any documentation to the IME including a consultation note written specifically for this purpose. In my experience it is highly unusual for there to be a verbal consultation in a process such as this and I have not been convinced that it is appropriate to deviate from the norm in this instance. To be clear, the general practitioner is certainly able to provide a written consultation note to the IME but there shall be no verbal communication.
The IME will be sent to the Employer. A copy of the report shall be sent to the grievor’s GP and to Ms. Adams. Once received by the Employer it will be reviewed only by those personnel who need to do so in order to resolve the issue of the grievor’s accommodation. Once reviewed it will be put in a sealed envelope and inserted into a file which is kept in a locked cabinet as discussed in our conference call. The sealed envelope should state that access to the contents is restricted and subject to the approval of the Superintendent. The matter of how long it can be kept by the Employer is a matter that the parties can address in final argument and I will determine in due course.
As a result of the grievor’s genuinely held concerns about access to her medical information and in the particular facts of this matter, I am of the view that the IME should be instructed to write a report outlining only those areas of her medical history and physical state that pertains to her neurological condition and her need for accommodation. To be clear, Ms. Adams is to disclose all medical information to the IME so that s/he can provide an informed medical opinion. However, not all of her medical history, (that is her medical history that has nothing to do with her present need for accommodation), should be revealed in the final report and the IME shall be so instructed.
I commend the parties for their efforts in continuing to work together to resolve the various issues that arise in this matter. In the event further matters arise, another teleconference can be scheduled.
Dated at Toronto this 21st day of August 2008.