GSB# 2018-1393; 2018-1394; 2018-1395; 2018-1396

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

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

Association

• and –

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Treasury Board Secretariat)

Employer

BEFORE

Brian McLean

Arbitrator

FOR THE ASSOCIATION

Nadine Blum Goldblatt Partners LLP Counsel

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Jonathan Rabinovitch Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel

HEARING

September 4, 2020 (by teleconference)

Decision

1I have decided to issue a bottom line decision with brief reasons with respect to this matter. If either party wishes full reasons please advise at the conclusion of the case and I will include them as part of my final award.

2I have carefully considered the submissions made by the parties. I note that I was not provided a decision of the GSB in which it had allowed a party to use a “will say” against the wishes of the other party. While I believe I have the authority to do so, the practice of the GSB, as I understand it, has been to encourage “will says” where it makes sense to use them and with the agreement of the parties.

3Even if I felt that I was not constrained by GSB practice this would not be an appropriate circumstance to permit a party to use a will say for its main witness. This case involves complicated facts which are heavily in dispute. While the evidence will be lengthy, and involve many documents, it is clear that the employer expects its witnesses to testify beyond the documents and provide context which involves evidence of facts which are in dispute. In these circumstances, and despite the anticipated length of the evidence, and with some regret, I do not find it appropriate for the employer to lead its evidence in chief by way of a will say given the objections of the Union.