GSB#2007-0009

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario (Lafreniere)

Association

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Felicity D. Briggs

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

James McDonald Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP Barristers & Solicitors

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Felix Lau Ministry of Government Services Legal Services Branch Counsel

HEARING

February 3, 2011, March 9, 2011, April 28, 2011.

Decision

1Ms. Danielle Lafreniere filed a dispute with the Ministry alleging that she was improperly surplussed following organizational changes. At the first day of hearing into this matter the Association raised a request for the disclosure of various documents, many of which concerned the re-organization of the work that led to the surplussing of Ms. Lafreniere. That request was set out in letters dated March 26, 2010 and April 29, 2010. Notwithstanding the Employer’s view that some of the documents requested were not arguably relevant, it did not take issue with the ordering of certain documents to be disclosed. A decision ordering the requested information be disclosed was issued.

2Following that disclosure, on the understanding that there is no shifting of onus, the Employer agreed to proceed with its evidence first on a without prejudice basis. Accordingly we have heard the evidence in chief of Ms. Mannering, Head of Technology Solutions. Following her evidence in chief, Mr. McDonald, for the Association, requested further disclosure. The Employer agreed to provide some of the requested information but took the position that much of the documentation requested is not arguably relevant.

3This matter was argued by counsel at our last day of hearing and in the interest of time, the parties accepted that I would issue a decision as quickly as possible but it would be without reasons. This interim decision deals only with this matter of further disclosure.

4In arriving at this decision I have reviewed the Summary of Dispute set out in the Dispute Form filed October 16, 2006, the opening statements of the parties, various documents provided as evidence to date and the submissions of the parties.

5The Employer urged that the relatively narrow issue before this Board is whether Ms. Lafreniere was properly matched following her being surplussed. However, it has been the Association’s view throughout that the grievor was treated unfairly and contrary to her rights throughout the entire re-organization that brought about her surplus. It was contended by the Association that because Ms. Lafreniere was the only employee who was surplussed, the process of the reorganization is suspect and must be examined.

6It is trite law that the test for disclosure is arguable relevance. To be clear, at hearing it might be that disclosed evidence will not be admitted. However, any such a determination will be made during the course of the hearing.

7As I understand that nature of the dispute and the evidence to date, documentary and viva voce, I am of the view that the requested documents are arguably relevant. Accordingly, I order the Employer to provide to the Association as quickly as possible the additional information set out at our last day of hearing.

8The disclosed information is to be used for no other purpose than this hearing without leave from the Board.