GSB#2013-1923, 2013-1924, 2013-2423, 2013-2424, 2013-2924, 2013-2925, 2013-2926, 2013-2927, 2013-2928, 2013-2929, 2013-2930, 2013-2931, 2013-2936, 2013-2937, 2013-2938, 2013-2939, 2013-2940, 2013-2941, 2013-3199, 2013-3200

UNION#2013-0202-0005, 2013-0202-0006, 2013-0202-0007, 2013-0202-0008, 2013-0154-0030, 2013-0154-0031, 2013-0202-0009, 2013-0202-0010, 2013-0202-0011, 2013-0202-0012, 2013-0202-0013, 2013-0202-0014, 2013-0340-0055, 2013-0340-0056, 2013-0340-0057, 2013-0340-0058, 2013-0599-0027, 2013-0599-0028, 2013-0154-0032, 2013-0154-0033

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Eagles)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Finance)

Employer

BEFORE

Ken Petryshen

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Lesley Gilchrist Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Omar Shahab Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel

CONFERENCE CALL

October 28, 2014

Decision

1I have before me a number of grievances filed by certain Inspectors employed by the Ministry. The focus of the grievances is on a change made by the Employer in August 2013 to its policy on the use of Ministry vehicles. The change required the Inspectors to keep the Ministry vehicles at their headquarters, rather than at their home. The parties were unable to resolve the grievances at mediation on May 5, 2014. They agreed that the grievances would be heard together and that counsel would deal with the issues of particulars and disclosure prior to the next hearing date. Employer counsel indicated that it was likely that the Employer would take the position that the Union did not have a prima facie case for these grievances. A number of hearing dates were scheduled, starting with November 5, 2014. This matter is being heard pursuant to article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement.

2Union counsel provided Employer counsel with particulars of the grievances on October 8, 2014. Employer counsel has taken the position that the grievances have not been sufficiently particularized. The Union disagrees and wants the Employer to comply with its request for disclosure. These issues were addressed during a conference call on October 28, 2014. Employer counsel confirmed during the conference call that the Employer intended to take the position at the hearing that the Union has not made out a prima facie case of a Collective Agreement violation. He provided a brief summary of the matters he would address when taking this position.

3I have reviewed the submissions made by counsel during the conference call in light of the circumstances in which they were made. I have reviewed the extensive particulars filed by the Union and I have also considered the decisions relied on by counsel.

4Union counsel referred me to the following decisions: OPSEU (Sutherland) and Ministry of Labour (2008), GSB No. 2006-0519 (Dissanayake); AMAPCEO v. Ontario (Ministry of Economic Development and Trade)(Bokhari Grievance), [2011] O.G.S.B.A. No. 93 (Dissanayake); and, OPSEU (Union) and Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services/Ministry of Children and Youth Services (2010), GSB Nos. 2012-1337 and 2009-0810 (Harris).

5Employer counsel drew my attention to the following decisions: OPSEU (Ross) and Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services (2003), GSB Nos. 2690/96 et al. (Herlich); OPSEU (Union) and Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (2004), GSB No. 2002-2260 (Mikus); OPSEU (Union) and Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (2006), GSB No. 2003-3766 (Briggs); OPSEU (Sidhu) and Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (2006), GSB Nos. 1996-0707 et al. (Abramsky); and, OPSEU (Kaufman) and Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (2013), GSB No. 2011-3942 (Watters).

6The relevant GSB decisions reflect that the main purpose of particulars is to provide the responding party with sufficient information so it is informed of the case it has to meet. It is evident from the particulars filed by the Union that the process of providing particulars required a considerable amount of time and effort on the part of the grievors and Union counsel. However, I agree with the Employer’s position that some of the facts alleged are not sufficiently particularized. Without reiterating the paragraphs in the particulars that Employer counsel identified as lacking in particularity, I simply direct the Union to provide adequate particulars with respect to areas identified during the conference call.

7The other issue for determination is whether I should direct the Employer to comply with the Union’s disclosure request when the Employer intends to make a non prima facie case motion on the next hearing date. As the GSB decisions also indicate, the purpose of disclosure is to allow a party to prepare its case. This proceeding is not at the stage yet where each side is preparing for the hearing on the merits. The Employer intends to argue in fact that the Union has not made out a case of a Collective Agreement violation in its particulars. If there is merit in the Employer’s motion, there will not be a hearing on the merits. With these considerations in mind, I am not inclined in these circumstances to direct the Employer to comply with the Union’s disclosure request at this stage of the proceeding.