Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-1686.Thadani.88-09-19EMPLOY~SDEU COURONNE OEL’ONTARIO CQMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT DES GRIEFS mo 0”NOM STREET WEST. TORONTO, ONTARIO. MS0 IZS - SUITE 2100 ,*o. RUE OUNOAS 0”E.v TORONTO, (ONTARIO, MS0 ,z* - BUREAU 21w 7ELEP,,ONE/TkLk’HONE ,416,59&0888 168bj87, 1688107, 1689J07 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: Before: OPSEU (Sheila Thadani) Grievor and The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Revenue) Employer M.K. Saltman, Vice Chairperson I. Thomson Member A. Stapleton Member For the Grievor: C. Wilkey CCJUnSel Cornish and Associates Barristers and Solicitors For the Employer: D. Daniels Labour Relations Officer Personnel Services Branch Ministry of Revenue Hearing: April a, 1988 May 13, 1988 RULING There are three grievances in this case. The first alleges breach of a prior settlement between the parties and discriminatory work assignments; the second that the Grievor has been subjected to a pattern of harassment in the work place; and the third that the Grievor’s performance appraisal for the period July 1, 1986 to June 30, 1987 was unfair and intended to circumvent the settlement reached between the parties. At the outset of the hearing, the Employer raised a preliminary objection respecting the second and third grievances. The Board ruled, following argument, that the preliminary objection respecting the second grievance could not be decided at this time and may be renewed by the Employer at a later date. This ruling, therefore, relates only to the objection raised in relation to the third grievance. That objection, simply stated, is that the Grievor is attempting to enlarge the scope of the grievance, which should not be permitted. 2 ,:’ _ I The allegation in the third grievance is that the Grievor was harassed; that her Supervisor partook in the harassment or at least condoned it; and, therefore, that his appraisal cannot be relied on. In the course of the grievance procedure, when asked to elaborate on what she meant by harassment, Ms. Thadani replied as follows: (1) that her work had been excessively criticised; (2) that she had been given contradictory instructions by her Supervisor; and (3) that she had been assigned menial tasks that were below her classification. There was some dispute as to~whether the matter of “personal harassment” was also raised during the grievance procedure. In any event, this matter and the matter of racial discrimination were raised at the pre-hearing. Nevertheless, the Employer claimed: (1) that these matters represent new grounds of grievance; and (2) that the Union should not be allowed to enlarge the scope of the grievance beyond those grounds referred to in the grievance procedure. The Union claimed that there was no attempt to enlarge the scope of the grievance and that the instances of harassment referred to at the pre-hearing were merely particulars and not separate grounds of grievance. Al though the Board is bound by the grievance before it. the Board is required, within the confines of that boundary, to deal with the real dispute 3 between the parties: see, e.g., Re Electrohome Ltd. and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 2345 (1985), 16 L.A.C.(3d)78 (Rayner). In this case, the real dispute relates to the allegation of harassment and its effect on the Grievor’s performance appraisal. The Employer concedes that the instances of harassment given during the grievance procedure come within the scope of this dfspute but claims that the instances given during the pre-hearing do not. In our view, the instances of harassment given at the pre-hearing are in the nature of particulars as are the instances referred to during the grievance procedure. Whether or not there was an obligation to provide particulars during the grievance procedure (which has been the subject of numerous arbitration awards) is not the issue in this case. The issue is whether new grounds of grievance were raised at the pre-hearing. In our view, they were not and, therefore, the Union is entitled to pursue the matters raised at the pre-hearing as well as those raised during the grievance procedure. If the Employer requires further DATED AT TORONTO, ._. 4 particulars of the allegation in this case, upon a proper request being made, the Board will deal with the matter. If, as indicated at the hearing, there are other objections to the admissibility of evidence respecting the instances of harassment raised at the pre-hearing, the Board 'will entertain them in due course. The hearings will be continued on dates set by the Registrar. The Board remains seized of this matter until the,dispute is finally resolved. th is 19th day of September, 1988. .~. M,:K. Saltman, Vice-Chairperson A. Stapleton, Member