HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-0612.Harding et al.14-10-30 DecisionCrown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB#2013-0612, 2013-0613, 2013-0614, 2013-0615, 2013-0616, 2013-0682, 2013-2932, 2013-2933,
2013-2934, 2013-2935, 2014-1116, 2014-1118
UNION#2013-0340-0009, 2013-0340-0010, 2013-0340-0011, 2013-0340-0012, 2013-0340-0013,
2013-0340-0014, 2013-0340-0051, 2013-0340-0052, 2013-0340-0053, 2013-0340-0054,
2014-0340-0003, 2014-0340-0005
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Harding et al) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Finance) Employer
BEFORE Barry Stephens Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Lesley Gilchrist
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Omar Shahab
Treasury Board Secretariat
Legal Services Branch
Counsel
HEARING September 11, 2014
- 2 -
Decision
[1] This case involves six discipline grievances as well as a number of countervailing
allegations of harassment and discrimination against the employer. This decision deals with
the employer’s preliminary motion asking that I dismiss the harassment and discrimination
grievances on the basis that there is no prima facie case.
[2] In those cases where an adjudicator decides to dismiss a motion of no prima facie case any
comments about the evidence and issues in the case should be kept at a minimum in order to
avoid providing any information that may give advantage to one party or the other. The
brevity of this decision is an application of that rule.
[3] The employer’s argument focused on the extent to which the grievances relate to various
letters written to the grievors about conforming with an order. The union alleged that the
letters in question were part of an overall series of events that must be viewed in context.
[4] After carefully considering the submissions of the parties, it is my view that the employer’s
preliminary motion should be dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 30th day of October 2014.
Barry Stephens, Vice-Chair