HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-2484.Santo.16-05-18 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#2015-2484
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Association of Management, Administrative and
Professional Crown Employees of Ontario
(Santo) Association
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities) Employer
BEFORE Barry Stephens Vice-Chair
FOR THE ASSOCIATION Elisa Mesiti
Association of Management, Administrative
and Professional Crown Employees of
Ontario
Dispute Resolution Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Dali Aung
Treasury Board Secretariat
Centre for Employees Relations
Employee Relations Advisor
CONFERENCE CALL March 31, 2016
- 2 -
Decision
[1] This grievance relates to an ongoing dispute regarding the medical
accommodation of the grievor. This interim order addresses the need for a temporary
accommodation of the grievor so that she can continue to work during the time that it
takes to arbitrate her grievance.
[2] The grievor has been an employee of the Ontario government for some 26 years.
She works as an Employment Program Consultant in the Ministry’s Employment and
Training Division, which oversees the implementation and management of
employment programs and services in the province. In 2014 she was diagnosed a
serious illness and upon her return to work she continued to deal with a number of
symptoms. Initially her doctor recommended that the grievor be permitted to work
from a location closer to her home. The employer took the position that such an
accommodation was not possible. The grievor then sought an agreement that she
work a shift that would allow her to commute to and from work during off-peak hours.
The employer took the position that such a shift was also unworkable given the
demands of the grievor’s position. This difference is at the heart of the merits of the
grievance, and the dispute about the employer’s ability to accommodate the grievor on
an ongoing basis will form the subject of the hearing between the parties.
[3] After attempting unsuccessfully to mediate an overall solution to the dispute, it
occurred to me that it would be possible with effort and compromise on both sides to
fashion a temporary accommodation so that the grievor could continue to provide
productive work while the issues with respect to a longer term accommodation were
- 3 -
litigated. I invited the parties to provide submissions in writing on an interim
accommodation and then received oral submissions on the subject via teleconference
on March 31, 2016. As a result, I hereby order the following terms of interim
accommodation:
i. The grievor is currently working some shifts out of the employer’s
office in Richmond Hill. She will be permitted to do so on an
ongoing basis for two days per week. If space is not available in
the employer’s Richmond Hill location, the grievor will be permitted
to work from home for two days per week.
ii. The grievor will work alternating weeks:
Week 1 - two days on regular hours, one day non-peak hours
Week 2 – two days non-peak hours and one day regular hours.
During days of non-peak hours the grievor will be permitted to
start as early as 0700 a.m. but no later than 0730 a.m., which
means she can put in a full day but leave the workplace no later
than 3:30 p.m.
iii. I will leave it to the parties to work out a schedule as to which days
will be in Richmond Hill and which will be regular or non-peak days
in Toronto. I urge both sides to be flexible on this point. It may
work best, for example, if this schedule is set on a week by week
basis in order to fit with the work requirements, e.g. to ensure the
grievor’s presence at an important meeting. However, if the parties
cannot agree on a schedule I will receive submissions on the
subject and provide a further interim ruling.
iv. Either party may seek an order for a variation of the interim ruling
based on relevant events or changed circumstances.
v. The experience arising from this interim ruling may be the subject
of evidence with respect to undue hardship in the case to be
litigated. In other words, either party may rely on events arising
during the period covered by the interim accommodation to inform
the issue of ongoing accommodation.
vi. It is my expectation that both parties will apply their best efforts in
good faith to make this interim accommodation work.
- 4 -
[4] The hearing on the merits will commence on a date to be set by the Grievance
Settlement Board.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 18th day of May 2016.
Barry Stephen, Vice Chair