The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1994-0545.Smith.95-01-17,-- ONTARIO CROWNEMPLOYEES 11'11 GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD \, ,EMPLOYESDELACOURONNE' DEL'ONTARIO COMMISSIONDE REGLEMENT DESGRIEFS 180DUNDASSTREETWEST;SUITE2100,TORONTOONM5G1Z8 180,RUEDUNDASOUEST,BUREAU2100,TORONTO(ON)M5G1Z8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE:(416)326-1388 FACSIMILE/TE(..ECOPIE:(416)326-1396 GSB#545/94,547/94,2192/93 OPSEU#94A855,94A854,94A044 INTHE MATTEROFANARBITRATION Onder THECROWNEMPLOYEESCOLLECTIVEBARGAININGACT Before THEGRIEVANCESETTLEMENTBOARD BETWEEN OPSEU(Smith) Grievor -and.. TheCrowninRightofontario (MinistryofCorrectionalServices) Employer BEFORE FORTHE GRIEVOR w.Kaplan E.Seymour M.O'Toole K.Whitaker Counsel RyderWhitakerWright Barristers&Solicitors Vice-Chairperson Member Member FORTHE EMPLOYER HEARING J.Benedict Manager,StaffRelations&Compensation ,MinistryofCorrectionalServices December8,1994.! ....... .. (2( Introduction .- OnMay17,1994,Ms.LynnSmith,aCorrectionalOfficeremployedatthe MetroEastDetentionCentre,filedtwogrievances.Oneofthesegrievances- .I alleges'a~violation ofArticleAof.theCollectiveAgreement;the$econ~ grievanc.eallegesa,violationofArticle27.10.2,theprovisionguaranteeing everyemployee,amongotherthings,therighttobefreefromsexual ha~assment fromsupervisors.ThecaseproceededtoahearinginTorontoat whichtimeunioncounselpresentedamotionthatthese,twogrievancesbe consolidatedwithathirdgrievancefiledbyMr.MichaelMcKinnon.This grievance,datedMay27,1993,grievesaviolationofArticleA., Attherequestoftheparties,theBoardrestrictedthishearingtoa' considerationoftheunion'sconsolidationrequest.Inordertoconsiderthat request,itwasnecessarytohearsomeofthebackgroundtothisdispute. Needlesstosay,thisawarddoes'notconstituteanyfindingoffactwith .respect,tothetruthoftheall~gations;nordoesitmake-anyfindingswith respect·tothemeritsofthemattersindispute. TheUnion'sReguest \ Intheunion'ssubmission,thiswasanappropriatecasefortheBoardto exerciseitslong-establishedjurisdictiontodirecttheconsolidation'of grievances.Counselbeganhissubmissionsbypointingoutthatboth. grievorsareco-workers,andthatbothgrievancesariseoutofthe,same incident.'Inbrief,'theunionallegesthatMs.Smithwassexuallyharassed byamemberofmanagement,Mr.BrianMelville.Itisassertedthatone night,inthespringof1993,Ms.Smithreceived-atelephonecallat-home fromMr.Melvillewhoinquiredwhetherhecouldcomeovertohavesexwith her.AccordingtoMs.Smith,shehad,inthepast,been,thevictimof 3 unwantedsexualattention,iridudingtouching,fromMr.Melville.Onthe nightinquestion,Mr.Melvillestated,'againaccordingtotheunion,thatMs. Smithhadbeeninvolvedinasexualrelationshipwithaco-worker,'Mr. McKinnon.Intheaftermathofthisconversation,Mr.Melvilleisfurther allegedtohavespreadthisrumouraroundtheworkplacecreating.a poisonedenvironmentforMs.Smith.Ms.Smithdeniesbeinginvolvedinany relationshipwithMr.McKinnon.Ms.Smithbecameextremelyupsetbythis incident,andiscurrentlyonmedicalleave.With Itheemployer'sconsent, unioncounselintroducedDr.StanleyBarron'sDecember2;1'994medical report: Iam,writingtoconfirmthatlynnSmithiscurrently beingfollowedactivelyontheMentalHealthServiceat thishealth'centreinrelationtoseveredepression relatedchieflytoworkrelatedstresses. Sheisfindingitextrernelydifficulttocope'-withstress atthistimeandIamconcernedthatshemaybeinvolved ,ingrievancehearingsinthenearfuturewhichwill .furthercontributetoadditionaldeteriorationinher emotionalhealth. 'Iwouldhopethatifitisrequiredthatshetestify,that anyappearancesbeconsolidatedoverasshortatime frameaspossiblesothatadditionalimpairmenttoher emotionalhealthwillnotoccur. IunderstandthatseveralhearingsmayberequiredandI wouldrequest,thatifpossible,thathertestimonybe providedonlylon,cetocoverbothhearingsifthatcanbe arranged. I Essentially,'wearetryingtominimizethedetrimental effectoftheadditionalstressoftheupcominghearings onheralreadyprecariousmental,stateandconsolidation oftestimonyinthisregardwouldbeveryhelpfultoher., 4( / Beforeturningtothereasonsinsupportof_theunion'sconsolidation application,unioncounseloutlinedtheeventsunderlyingMr.McKinnon's grievance.Thisisnotthefirstcomplainthe_hasregisteredagainstMr. Melville.AnaboriginalCanadian,Mr.McKinnonhas,inthepast,allegedthat' Mr.Melvillehasdiscriminatedagainsthimonthebasisofraceandculture. Inthiscase,he'filedagrievanceallegingaviolationofArticleAasa resultoftv1r.Melvillespreadingarumouraroundtheworkplace'thathewas I sexuallyinvolvedwithMs.Smith.Whilethesubstanceofhisgrievance takesissuewiththis,italsoseekstoplacethisactioninthecontextof·a <' patternofdiscriminatorytreatment.AsMs.Smithmusttestifyather hearingandthatofMr.McKinnon,and,asMr.McKinnonmusttestifyat'his ~earing andthatofMs.Smith,itf:!ladethe-mostsense,intheunion's submission,fortheretobeonehearingandnottwo. ,Itistheunion'spositionthatthesetwogrievances,whichariseoutofthe sameincident,~shouldbeheardatthesametime.Notonlywouldthisresult ,,f inasavingofpublicandunionresources,itwouldalsoensurethatthere were'nocontraryfindingsoffact,whichmightoc.curinthecaseofparallel proceedings.Counselalsoreferredtothestateof,Ms.Smith'shealth,and thepossibledangertoherhealthshouldshehavetotestifytwice.Very simply,counselargued,administrativeefficiencyandthesavingof {resourcesinatimeofeconomicrestraintdictatedtheconsolidationof thesecases(Mr.McKinnon'sgrievancewasscheduledtoproceedtoahearing .onDecember22,1994).Counselalsotookthepositiontherewasno evidenceofanyprejudicetoMr.Melvilleortheemployerbythe consolidationorder.Verysimply,counselconcluded,therewasnobasisto,, denytheunion'srequestandeveryreasontograntit. "3- 5( TheEmployer's'Submissions Intheemployer'sview,thiswasnotanappropriatecaseforconsolidation. AccordingtoMr.Benedict,thefactswerenotastheunionstated.He allegedthatMs.Smithhadpreviouslybeeninvolvedir:'asexualrelationship withMr.Melville,andthat.manyoftheproblems.presentedinthiscase occurredfollowingtheconclusionofthatrelationship.Mr.Benedictalso poil!.tedoutthatMs.Smith's'complaintswerethesubjectofaWDHPP ..complaintandinvestigation,andhe'notedthatMr.·McKinnon'sandMr. Smith'sgrievanceswerefiledapproximatelyoneyearapart.Whilethe employerdidnotwish·todoanythingtoaggravateMs.Smith'shealth,Mr. Benedicttookthepositionthathealthreasonsalonedidnotpresent sufficientcausetoconsolidatetwoseparatecomplaints. Mr~Benedictnotedthat·Ms.Smith'sgrievancereferredtoasingleincident, whileMr.McKinnon'sgrievancewasmuchbroaderinscope.Therewas, .therefore,insufficientcommonalitybetweenthetwocases.Inthe'. employer'sview,theonlycommondenominatorwasthatthetwogrievors hadfiledgrievancesaboutthesamesupervisor,andthissurely,Mr. Benedictargued,wasnQtsufficientreasontoorderthatthesegrievances beconsolidatedinasinglecase.Inthe.employer'ssubmission,a consolidationorderinacaseofthiskindwouldcauserealprejudicetothe employerbyforcingamemberofmanagementtoanswerdifferent grievancesfiledbytwoemployeesinthecontextofasinglehearing. Problemsofcollateralevidencewerealsosuretoarise,andthistoo,was anotherreasoninfavourofseparateproceedings.IntheemploYe.r'sview, thecaseswerediscrete,andshouldbetreatedassuch.Accordingly,the employerrequestedthattheconsolidationrequestbedenied. ( 6( UnionReply Inreply,unioncounselpointedoutthatwhiletherewasanapparentgap betweenthefilingofMr~McKinnon'sgrievanceandthatofMs.Smith,thelag wasnotwhatitseemed~for Ms.Smithimmediatelyfiledhergrievances .. uponthereleaseoftheWDHPPreport.Thefactremained,datesaside,that thetwogrievancesaroseoutofthesameincident.Whileitwastrue enoughthattheunionintended,duringthecourseoftheproceedingsshould itsconsolidationrequestbegranted,toallegethatMr.Melvillehadengaged ina'patternofconduct,itwasalsotruethattheincidentinvolvingMs. Smithwasgoingtobethecenterpieceoftheunion'sallegationsagainst·the employerandMr.Melville.Therewas,therefore,intheunion'sview,more thansufficientcommonalityjustifyingconsolidation,andcounsel suggestedthatanyproblemwith'respecttocollateralevidencecouldbe dealtwithbytheBoard.asitarose.Finally,theunionaskedthatitbe noted,fortherecord,thatMs.Smithcategoricallydenieseverhavinghada sexualrelationshipwithMr.Melville. Decision Aftercarefullyconsideringthesubmissionsofthe.parties;theBoard advisedthemthatitwasoftheviewthatthegrievancesshouldbe consolidated,andthenpromisedwrittenreasonsforthisdecision.T~ese arethosereasons. Inourview,andbasedonthefactsasallegedbytheunionforthepurposes ofitsconsolidationrequest,wefindthattheSmithandMcKinnon grievancesarise~utofthesameincident.Theemployertookissuewith consolidatingwiththeSmithgrievancesanothergrievancethatraisedthis oneissueaswellasotherissues.HadwebeenpersuadedthattheMcKinnon 7 (, grievanceonlyincidentallyraisedtheincidentMs.Smithhasgrieved,we wouldhavelikelydeniedtheunionrequest.However,itisclear,againbased J 'onthesubmissionsoftheunion,thattheMcKinnongrievanceraisesthe Smithincident,whichdirectlyinvolvesMr:McKinnon,andthensituatesthat incidentinthecontext"ofagrievanceallegingon-goingharassment.There issufficientcommonalityinthiscasetoorderthatthegrievancesbe consolidated. Thereareanumberofotherreasolilsinsupportofthisdecision.Thecases arenotonlyfactuallyrelated"butbothgrievorswillbeprincipalwitnesses c inbothgrievances.Differentfindingsoffactwillbeavoidedasaresultof \.•/r ourconsolidationorder.Moreover,thisorderwillsavethepublicandthe partiesmoney,andwillcontributetotheorderlyandefficientdisposition ofbothgrievances. Weshould'alsonotethatinreachingthisdecisionwewereinfluencedby thefactthattheredoesnotappeartobeanyprejudicetotheemployer. Thereisnoevidencetosuggestthatthisconsolidationrequestismadein anythingbutgoodfaithandforaproperpurpose.Finally,thefactofthe matteristhatMs.Smithisreceivingpsychiatrictreatment,anditis'the, opinionofherattendingphysicianthatitwouldbein·herbenefittoonly testifyonce.Obviously,thisorderwillassistMs.Smithinthatrespect. Accordingly,andfortheforegoingreasons,wedirectthattheMcKinnon grievance,'GSBfileno.2192/93,beconsolidatedwiththeinstantcase.At therequest"oftheparties,wefurtherdirectthatthismatterbesetdown foranearlyhearing. --------...,,"--~~- 8 ,- \. I I DATEDatTorontothis 17th ()/~---- WilliamKaplan Vice-Chairperson .~/qY'-~~J6- .-------- E.Seymour Member ;Inr()l/~.---------- M.O'Toole Member dayof January,1995.