GSB#2014-3708

UNION# 2014-0999-0140

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Union)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Treasury Board Secretariat)

Employer

BEFORE

Nimal Dissanayake

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Tim Hannigan Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Counsel

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Benjamin Parry Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Senior Counsel

HEARING

January 14, 2021

Decision

1The instant policy grievance was dated November 19, 2014, and first came before the Board on October 14, 2016. By agreement, the parties put to the Board different aspects of the grievance consecutively over multiple hearing dates, and the Board issued several decisions.

2When the matter resumed on January 14, 2021, the parties jointly requested that the Board mediate a number of issues. They provided additional information and clarified the scope of the issues raised in the grievance.

3Following discussions with the Board’s assistance, the parties advised that they had signed minutes finally resolving the grievance itself, as well as an application for judicial review that had been filed with respect to one of the decisions of the Board in this matter. The parties further advised that under the terms of the minutes both matters are deemed withdrawn, subject to the issuance of a further decision by the Board, taking into account the additional information and clarification they had provided.

4Having regard to the joint position of the parties, it is hereby ordered as follows with regard to the Board decision in this matter dated July 18, 2017.

(A) Paragraph 66 of that decision is deleted and replaced by the following:

“The consent form currently in use is too broadly worded. It should be amended to be consistent with the requirements set out in the answers to question 1 and 2 above, It must be ensured that any references in the cover letter to the three “w’s”, are consistent with the information in the corresponding consent form. Since the form makes reference to the cover letter, it would be confusing to the employee, if the manager uses language in the cover letter that may be interpreted as broader than what is set out in the form itself.”

(B) Paragraph 67 of the decision is deleted and replaced by the following:

“I will not address the broad issue in items (b) and (c) since they related to what health information the employer is entitled to”.

5Upon the release of this decision, the Registrar shall deem the instant policy grievance and the outstanding application for judicial review, Court File No. 029/18 filed on January 11, 2018 in relation to the Board decision dated July 18, 2017, withdrawn and update the Board records accordingly.