GSB#2013-3791. 2014-3127

UNION#2013-0234-0021, 2014-0234-0452

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Plouffe)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Daniel A. Harris Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Ed Holmes

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Felix Lau

HEARING

February 7, 2018

Decision

1This matter came on for hearing on February 7, 2018. There have been two previous Decisions rendered, being on November 22, 2017 and January 16, 2018. Both dealt with the Union’s particularized request for production of documents it said were under the control of the Employer.

2At the hearing of February 7, 2018 the Union withdrew, without prejudice, any and all allegations in the grievances before me of breaches of the Ontario Human Rights Code and/or of article 3 of the collective agreement between the parties. As I understand it, those withdrawals were at the request of the grievor, who has retained an independent legal advisor. Accordingly, the claims that remain before the Board relate to claims of violations of the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act, the provisions in the collective agreement related to Health & Safety and the provisions of Bill 168 – workplace antiviolence subsumed in the above.

3The second issue addressed at the hearing of February 7, 2018 relates to what the Union described as the Employer’s continuing to fail to comply with the Board’s Orders to produce the documents described in my previous Orders of November 22, 2017 and January 16, 2018 above. That includes a copy of the final Local Investigation Report and any and all documents, including notes, emails, correspondence or any other document, associated with that report. Further, the Orders compelled the Employer to produce any notes made by one Mr. Marchegiano at relevant meetings. Mr. Marchegiano has since retired. At the hearing on February 7, 2018, counsel for the Ministry submitted that the Employer had not attempted to contact Mr. Marchegiano by telephone. Subsequent to the hearing, the Board was advised that the Employer had previously done so, but the telephone number was no longer in service. No further or other attempts to reach him were made in order to attempt to comply with the Board’s Orders. Mr. Marchegiano’s notes appear to be arguably relevant. It is the Employer’s first duty to obtain and produce those notes, if they exist.

4Finally, the Board’s Orders require the production of any and all Occurrance Reports or other written forms of complaint filed by any employee against H. Murchison and D. Murchison. The Union submits that to its knowledge there are such documents that have not been produced, contrary to the Board’s Orders, set out above.

5At the hearing of February 7, 2018, the Union put the Employer on notice that if the documents previously ordered are not produced before the next scheduled hearing date, it will ask the Board to engage in a show cause hearing to enquire into the reasons for the failure to comply with the Board’s Orders and, if appropriate, to make a citation of contempt, with its penal consequences, against named representatives of the Employer.