P-2002-0003
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT
Before
THE PUBLIC SERVICE GRIEVANCE BOARD
BETWEEN
Ron Chyczij
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Labour)
Employer
BEFORE
Kathleen G. O’Neil Vice-Chair
FOR THE GRIEVOR
Ron Chyczij Alexandra Chyczij
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Yasmeena Mohamed Senior Counsel Ministry of Government Services
HEARING
July 10, 2007.
Decision
This decision deals with the grievor’s request for an order for further production from the employer, made during the hearing held on July 10, 2007, on which the Board reserved at the time. The grievance before the Board concerns the denial of the grievor’s request for tuition assistance for an MBA program.
There are two requests by the grievor:
- A copy of exemptions applied for by the Pay Equity Commission as a result of the Fiscal Strategy adopted by the Ministry of Labour effective November 15, 2001; and
- Records of the original approval in fiscal year 2000/01 for two courses to be taken by Bev Rosser.
1. The exemptions
Employer counsel opposed the request for documents concerning exemptions applied for by the Pay Equity Commission, as a result of the Fiscal Strategy adopted by the Ministry of Labour effective November 15, 2001, because of the lateness of the request, and the fact that Ms. Rosser, who would have been the person who made such applications for exemptions, is no longer on the stand, having testified as the grievor’s witness.
As the grievor has pleaded that his application was unfairly treated less favourably than others, the Board finds that it would be arguably relevant if the employer applied for exemptions for other tuition assistance while denying the grievor’s request. Otherwise, however, the Board finds the request far too broad. The order for production will be limited to any documents related to applications for exemptions for tuition assistance between November 15, 2001 and the end of 2003, the period of potential relevance set in the Board’s decision on production dated March 16, 2007. If there were no such exemptions applied for, there will be nothing to produce.
Although Ms. Rosser’s evidence has been concluded, and the lateness of the request is unfortunate, the Board does not find these to be sufficient grounds to refuse the production of these documents, if they exist. The weight of any such documents, if entered into evidence, will be assessed at the end of the day in light of the fact, among others, that the grievance relates to a request for tuition assistance that was formally denied in December, 2001, which is shortly after the fiscal strategy took effect, but on a recommendation which the decision maker, Ms. Rosser, testified took place between March and October, 2001, which pre-dates the strategy.
2. The approval of the two courses for Bev Rosser
The employer objects to the production of further documents concerning the courses taken by Ms. Rosser on the basis that the request could have been made earlier, the grievor’s requests for production are incessant, and because the courses in question, including a Human Resources course, are not similar to the MBA course for which the grievor requested tuition assistance. Further, counsel reiterated the employer’s position that the courses taken by senior managers, and the approval process for them, are entirely different than that for Review Officers such as the grievor.
The evidence of Ms. Rosser indicated that she had been approved for both a Strategic Leadership and Human Resources program at Queen’s University for the fall of 2001, but that she did not take the Human Resources program. Rather, she took a Public Executive program at Queen’s University in 2002 instead. She was unable to supply the date that she registered for the 2001 courses, and the material already produced does not show the approval date for the first two courses. Rather it relates to the invoices for the course taken in 2002. As with the related request dealt with in the Board’s March 16, 2007 decision on production, the Board finds that this information is arguably relevant to the grievor’s theory of the case, which includes the assertion that training funds were being denied him in part as a result of a conflict of interest, in order to make them available for the deciding manager herself. Further, the approval documents may establish a framework for the dates of Ms. Rosser’s tuition assistance approval, which would be arguably relevant to the grievor’s assertion that Ms. Rosser was simultaneously improperly using the “lion’s share” of the tuition budget for herself while refusing his application on the basis of insufficient budget.
To the extent indicated above, the employer is ordered to produce any of the requested information that is in its possession, as soon as possible. The grievor is once again directed to prepare his case, including interviewing his witnesses as to relevant documents, in advance of the hearing dates, so that further production requests may be kept to matters that are truly unable to be anticipated.
The hearing will re-convene on August 8, 2007 as scheduled.
Dated at Toronto this 7th day of August, 2007