The Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario v. The Crown in Right of Ontario, 2020 CanLII 85974

GSB#2013-4247; 2018-1169

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 (Association)

Association

• and –

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Solicitor General and Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services)

Employer

BEFORE

Brian McLean

Arbitrator

FOR THE ASSOCIATION

Marisa Pollock (Counsel) Goldblatt Partners LLP

FOR THE UNION FOR THE EMPLOYER

Donald Eady (Counsel) Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP George Parris (Counsel) Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch

SUBMISSIONS

August 17, September 4 & 18, 2020

Decision

1I have reviewed the submissions filed by the parties following the conference call held in July. My intention had been to write an award this week in resolution of the dispute(s) addressed by the submissions. Regrettably, I do not feel I am in a position to do so without receiving further submissions.

2In its submissions, OPSEU argued that it was entitled to participate in this hearing based on what might be considered the typical grounds for such intervention requests. In its response, AMAPCEO did not really disagree that in the normal situation OPSEU might well be granted intervener status in this case (although I make no specific finding about AMAPCEO’s position in this regard). Instead, AMAPCEO argued that the issue of who represents the affected workers has already been decided by the Ontario Labour Relations Board and the result of that decision is that OPSEU has no interest in this matter.

3In reply submissions, OPSEU did not really address AMACEO’s argument. Instead, it reiterated its narrow position that it had a right to intervene and (in effect) only once it had been given the right to intervene would it be in a position to comment on AMAPCEO’s res judicata/issue estoppel argument.

4It might be possible to find that OPSEU has had its opportunity to make submissions on the issues raised by AMAPCEO and go on to determine those issues based on the submissions made by the employer (which did file submissions on those issues) and AMAPCEO. However, that might well be a bad labour relations result which could add even more uncertainty to a process that has gone on for so many years to the detriment of the affected workers. I do not want to add more uncertainty even though it will likely result in short term delay.

5Accordingly, I invite written submissions from OPSEU regarding the issues raised by AMAPCEO in its submissions regarding the effect of the OLRB’s PSAC case. I assume it has standing for this purpose. The employer and AMAPCEO shall have an opportunity to respond to those submissions and OPSEU the opportunity for reply.

6I encourage the parties to agree to the schedule for the exchange of submissions, failing which I will impose one. I also suggest to OPSEU that it start drafting its submissions as soon as possible.

7Finally, I suggest that we not adjourn the November hearing dates we have coming up unless the parties think otherwise. The employer has made various production undertakings which are generally set out in Ms. Pollock’s email of July 8; it will be useful to determine where those stand. In addition, we can discuss the employer’s other preliminary objections and AMAPCEO’s objections to them.

8We have now burned through several of the hearing dates which had been scheduled in the Spring. I urge the parties to keep in mind that this group of workers has been in a state of limbo for a very long time and to act accordingly. My aim is to get this litigation back on track.