HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-3483.Koonings&Froner.95-12-21
."
'Ii
<
.,;"i\. EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
..~ ONTARIO
-", CROWN EMPLOYEES DEL 'ONTARIO
~!
1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
,
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
- ,
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 2100, TORONTO ONTARIO. M5G lZ8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE (416) 326-7388
180 RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 2.100, TQRO~rO (ONTARIO) M5G lZ8 FACSIMILEIf.ELECP?IE J476) 326-7396
G$B # .34'83/92,~ 3'484/92, 3485/92,"- .3486/92
OLBEU .# OLB449/92', OLB450/92, OtB010/93, OLB011/93
IN-THE. MAT.TER OF AN' ARBITRATION
Under
(
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES- COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
.Before
'~THE .GRIEVANCE 'SET"TLEMENT BOARD .-
.-
BETWEEN , -
OLBEU (Koonings/Froner)
~. ;;~ v Grievor
-
- and -
- ..., ~...~
The Crown in Right of Ontario ;.
(Liquor Control B09rq of oDta'rio) , ~
"-
Employer
....
<-
BEFORE S Stewart Vice-Chairperson
J._Carruthers ~E?mb~l;" ~
M Milich Member
~ "'
-
FOR THE'" '-> J -:;.Noble ;.
GRIEVOR Counsel
on~ario Liguor Boards :J;:mpl.qyees Union .,
~ , ,
FOR THE V Johnston
,EMPLOYER. " Counsel -, -
Hicks, Morley, Hamilton, stewart, storie
. Barriste~s & Sqlioito~s ,
HEARING October 26, 1995
November 9, 10, 22, 1995
(
~ "
~, r
:It(
oj
t
-
'1DEC~S.ION "
- r
"~ . if
There are four grievances before the Board in this matter,
r'
filed on behalf of T. Koonings and K Froher. Th~re are two
grievances dated ,Decemb~r 15,_ 1992 and two grievances d~:~ed
January 13" 1993. The grievances.,claim that MS.i Koonings and Ms
Froner have been subjected .:to harcfs'sment "and, diS?crimination.
In the dour,se of Ms Koon'irtgs' test:imony,' evidenc::e was
adduced relating to conversations between Ms. Koonings and
another employee which took place -in 'fr.ont~of customers. Ms
Koonings testified that she was spoken to in a demeaning manne~~_
It was the Union's position that this conduct was an element of
the harassment and discrimination experienced by Ms. Koonings
-
The Union indicated-that it wished to addticeevidence relating to
similar conversations which took place subsequent to the
r
grievance It was the Union's position that~the Board should not
/ -
restrict its considerations to whether there was a violation of
the Collective Agreement when the grievances. were 'filed but .,
should also hear ahd consider whether subsequent .events
constituted a violation or violations of the Collective
-
Agreement, . Counsel for the Employer objected to the introduction
-, - -
of such evidence. The Board upheld the Employer's objection. At
the request of Ms Noble the ruling of t~e Board in this regard
is being provided in writing
I
As the Board indicated in an earlier interim award in this
-
r,-
,j
~
#-,.:,
.
matter, it is the nature of the event, rather than its timing,
that determines relevance and thus admissibility However, the
Collective Agreement contemplates complaints being defined and
crystallized"in the course of the grievance procedure
Accordingly, ~nsofar as the subsequent events were put forward as
separate allegations of impropriety it was our view that such
evidence was beyond the scope of the particular allegations that
crystallized at the time of the grievance and therefore should
not be adjudicated by the Board While, as the Board noted,
there may be 'other contexts in which events occurring after the
filing of the grievance are relevant to the allegations which
gave rise to the grievance and therefore properly admissible, the
appropriate scope of this matter is limited to the allegations in
existence at the time the grievance arose Accordingly, in this
context, the Board upheld the Employer's objection to the
introduction of this evidence.
DATED at Toronto, this 21st day of December, 1995
~~~
S.L stewart - Vice-Chair
~
Carruthers - Union Nominee
~~ IL<
M Milich - EmJ;>~r Nominee