GSB#2010-2654
UNION#2010-0234-0283
Additional grievances noted in Appendix “A”
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Pacheco)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFORE
Ken Petryshen
Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION
John Brewin Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Counsel
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Suneel Bahal Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel
HEARING
September 7, 2017
DECISION
1In a decision addressing some production issues dated August 24, 2017, I directed the Union “to produce any and all notes taken by Mr. Pacheco or by Mr. Jagpal in relation to meetings held regarding the matters currently being heard by the GSB”. In relation to that direction I noted that Union counsel had advised that a claim of privilege might be asserted with respect to some of the notes the Union would produce.
2The Union did provide Employer counsel with typed notes pursuant to the Board’s direction. Parts of the notes were redacted on the ground that those parts were protected by a privilege. During a discussion I had with counsel at the hearing on September 7, 2017, Employer counsel advised that the Employer wanted the Union to produce an unredacted version of the notes. I took this to mean that the Employer wanted to challenge the Union’s assertion that some parts of the notes were protected by a privilege. After some further discussion of this issue and as a first step in dealing with the question of whether parts of the notes were protected by a privilege, I directed the Union to produce the unredacted version of the notes to Employer counsel to be viewed only by Employer counsel and co-counsel. I made this direction with the hope that the issue of privilege could be resolved by the parties. I anticipated that Employer counsel would review the redacted parts of the notes to determine whether a privilege claim was sustainable and, from a practicable point of view, whether it was necessary to have a dispute over this issue. Employer counsel would then be in a position to provide advice to his client and obtain instructions on this issue. If this initial step to deal with the privilege issue does not avoid a dispute about the redacted parts of the notes, counsel can make further submissions on how to resolve the dispute.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 11^th^ day of September 2017.
Appendix A
GSB Number
OPSEU File Number
2012-0727
2012-0234-0066
2013-3214
2013-0234-0359
2014-0350
2014-0234-0061
2014-3305
2014-0234-0458
2014-3846
2014-0234-0508
2014-4854
2015-0234-0030
2015-0390
2015-0234-0058
2015-0494
2015-0234-0069
2015-0495
2015-0234-0070
2015-0496
2015-0234-0071
2015-0913
2015-0234-0085
2015-0914
2015-0234-0086
2015-0915
2015-0234-0087
2015-0916
2015-0234-0088
2015-1310
2015-0234-0108
2015-1311
2015-0234-0109
2015-1312
2015-0234-0110
2015-1313
2015-0234-0111
2015-1314
2015-0234-0112
2015-1315
2015-0234-0113
2015-1316
2015-0234-0114
2015-1317
2015-0234-0115
2015-1318
2015-0234-0116
2015-1319
2015-0234-0117
2015-1320
2015-0234-0118
2015-1321
2015-0234-0119```