Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-1946.MacGregor.96-11-05 -- ~ ~, ~ B - 1 ~ ~r''' ~ <;,' 1 OfffARIO EMPLOy/tS DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'OfffARIO GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE 1111 SETILEMENT .. REGLEMENT : BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO ON M5G 1Z8 TELEPHONEITELEPHONE (416) 326-1388 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ON) M5G 1Z8 FACSIMILEITELECOPIE (416) 326-1396 GSB # 1946/93, 206/94 OPSEU # 93F950, 94A583-6 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAIN~NG ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (MacGregor et all Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Solicitor General; & Correctional Services) Employer BEFORE R.J. Roberts Vice-Chairperson T. Browes-Bugden Member F Collict Member FOR THE S. Lopez GRIEVOR Counsel Cavalluzzo, Hayes, Shilton, Mclntyr~ & Cornish Barristers & soJicitors ,- FOR THE J. Smith EMPLOYER Counsel Legal Services Branch Management Board Secretariat HEARING July 10, 24, 1995 september 29, 1995 November 17, 1995 January 19, 19956 February 23, 1996 May 23, 1996 June 10, 1996 ~-;:, I ( :~ \ ~~ :r- 'i' 1 AWARD I. Introduction In the present case, five gnevances went to arbItratIOn upon the ments after we held m an mtenm award dated November 7, 1994 that they were dISCrImmatIOn gnevances, and not classIficatIOn gnevances as alleged by the employer In a protracted hearing, considerable evidence was mtroduced by both partIes. The eVIdence included a view by the Board of two OPP radio rooms, one located at the-OPP Dispatch Centre in Peterborough and the other located at Queen's Park. ExtensIve argument was made upon the Issue of "adverse effects" dIscnmmatIOn agamst the handIcapped dIspatchers m the radio room at Queen's Park. SubmissIOns were also made upon the Issue of the eXIstence of a negatIve work enVIronment for handIcapped dIspatchers m the OPP detachment at Queen's Park. The latter Issue was raIsed for the first time m the opemng statement of counsel for the umon. For reasons WhICh follow, the gnevances are dIsmIssed. II. The Evidence for the Union' Four Witnesses testified for the union. They were Ms. Allanna Courte, Ms. Janet Lee, Ms. . Eleanor Carter, and Ms. Carol BaIrd. TheIr eVIdence was as follows _. ~ !. ( '\' ~1 ,~ - " .. '" 2 (1) AlIanna Courte. Ms. Courte was the malO wItness on behalf of the umon. ImtIally, she had been a grIevor; however, part way through the heanng the partIes settled her grIevance and carned on wIth the arbItratIOn of the remaimng four grievances. It was agreed that despIte the settlement, Ms. Courte would contmue togIve evidence on behalf of the other gnevors. In many respects, Ms. Courte's grIevance set the stage for the gnevartces of the other gnevors. Ms. Courte testIfied that she started at the radIO room m Queen's Park m 1988, after It had been establIshed as an affirmative action program for disabled persons. She was clasSIfied as a RadIO Operator I (RO I) She Said that after she had been there for a few months, she learned that m the OPP detachments m the field some dIspatchers were claSSIfied at the RO 2 level In the following year, she and her then colleagues 10 the radIO room at Queen's Park Jomed WIth the RO l's 10 the field m a classificatIOn grIevance claIm10g that they were Improperly claSSIfied at the RO I level. ThIS eventually preCIpItated a reVIew of the duties and responsibIlItIes of all dIspatchers and the estabhshment of the new class senes of Com mum catIOns Officer (CO) FInally, In 1992, the gnevor and her colleagues at Queen's Park were reclassIfied to the claSSIficatIOn of CO 1, whIch had the effect of gIvmg them an eleven percent pay 10crease The trouble was, all of the former RO 1 's In the field had been recl~ssIfied to the hIgher claSSIficatIOn of CO 2 The dIspatchers at Queen's Park were the only ones who were placed at -- -~- ~ \ ( Ci' '. - - '" 'i' 3 the CO I level By thIS time, Ms. Courte had become the superVIsor ofthe other CO's at Queen's Park and was classIfied as a CO 2, however, all of the dIspatch supervIsors m the field were classIfied at the CO 3 level. On October 18, 1993, Ms. Courte filed a gnevance clmmmg, inter alia, that m fatlmg to classify her as a CO 3 the employer had breached artIcle A of the collectIve agreement. On February 10, 1994, all of the dIspatchers who were then under 'Ms. Courte's supervIsion, Mr Gary W MacGregor, Ms. Janet Lee, Ms. MarYJane McGraw, and Mr Colin McInnIs, followed SUlt WIth gnevances essentIally claimmg that the faIlure of the employer to classIfy them at the CO 2 level breached artIcle A of the collective agreement. Ms. Courte gave extensive eVIdence regardmg the structure of the Queen's Park Services of the OPP and the functIOns of the Queen's Park radio room. Referring to the 1993' annual report of Queen's Park ServIces, she testified that thIS branch of the OPP was headed by an OPP Inspector, who oversaw the adm1OIstratIOn and operational functIOns of three major components Area Command, OPP Queen's Park Detachment, and OPP Osgoode Hall detachmel1t. The bulk of the secunty work was proVIded by OGPS constables who were appo1Oted as specIal constables under the PolIce SerVIces Act. In fact, the ratio ofOGPS staff to OPP staffwas greater than 10 to I The OGPS service was created by Order m CouncIl 10 1973 Its mandate was to be responsible for the protectIOn and phYSIcal securIty of all persons 10 the locatIOns they served, and the preservatIOn of peace on government property In 1993, the OGPS proVIded secunty for the Mam LegIslatIve BUlldmg and the WhItney Block (Queen's Park Detachment), Osgoode Hall (Osgoode Hall Detachment), and, the MacDonald Block, the Frost BUlldmgs, the George Drew l~ { ( ~ \ ~ .. .. 4 BUlld1Og, OPP General Headquarters, 125 Lakeshore Boulevard East, the Office of the Ombudsman of Ontano, the Attorney General's Office, and the Provmcial PolIce Academy 10 Brampton (Area Command). Smce January, 1995, OGPS officers have not been armed. Accordmg to Ms. Courte, the Queen's Park Radio Room dIspatched all OGPS officers at the MalO LegIslatIve BuIldmg, the MacDonald Block, the Frost BUlldings, Osgoode Hall and the Ombudsman's Office. The rest were momtored by the dIspatchers via two-way radIO The radio room also dIspatched the four OPP officers that were assIgned to the Mam LegIslatIve BUlldmg and the WhItney Block. Upon cross-examinatIOn, Ms. Courte agreed that the OPP officers were not tied as ngIdly to the control of the dispatchers as the OGPS officers. She added, however, that the dispatchers were the lifelme for both. As to the role of the OPP Officers, Ms. Courte agreed that they were mvolved m dealIng with and 10vestIgatmg more senous cnmmal activIty than the OGPS officers. The OGP S officers, she saId, were more Involved In proVIdIng secunty Referring to the 1993 annual report, she agreed that the OPP officers were mvolved m mvestigatmg Cnminal Code off~nses such as bomb threats, break and enter, mIschIef, suspIcious parcels or mall, threatemng letters or telephone calls, assaults, and thefts of government and personal property These, she agreed, were of an emergent nature. On the other hand, the OOPS officers were more likely to be Involved In non-Cnminal Code matters, usually of a non- emergent nature These mcluded trespassmg, causmg a dIsturbance, i ---~--- - -- - ~~ r ( ,~ .- " 5 surveIllance, breach of securIty, Internal and pubhc complamts, persons demed entry, lost and found property, provIdmg personal secunty dUrIng demonstratIons, escorting tradespersons and contractors, InvestIgatIng fire and duress alarms, and reportmg unlocked doors and defectIve locks or hght1Og. Ms. Courte agreed that there were far more of these types of occurrences than Cnminal Code occurrences. For example, the 1993 annual report indIcated that there were 5,734 reports of Insecure premIses made to the dIspatchers but only five assaults--one at the LegIslatIve BmldlOg and four at Area Command. Ms. Courte said that the number of assaults was hIgh for the year Not a lot of assaults occurred at Queen's Park and if they dId, they were investIgated by the OPP Ms. Courte then turned to the speCIfics of the InteractIOn of the dIspatchers with the OGPS and OPP officers. The Board was shown a duty sheet that allowed the dIspatchers to know where they were at all tImes The officers, she said, were reqmred to check In wIth the dIspatchers when they went off and returned from break, and thIS InfOrmatIOn was duly recorded on the duty sheet. I They also had to advIse the dIspatchers of theIr locatIOn dunng theIr breaks. ThIS was the only devIce aVailable for trackmg the officers Only the dIspatchers knew where each officer was at anyone tIme If someone wanted to know where a partIcular officer was, tqey had to come to the ! radIO room or contact the dIspatcher by radIO We were next shown a document called a patrol sheet. Ms. Courte testIfied that ItS purpose was to ensure that all areas of the buIlding were checked by a security officer and If 1Osecure, why and when It was found to be so ThIS sheet was filled In by the dIspatchers whIle the officer iY I ( (\' \ '. i' ~ 6 checked the area and called the report m. ~ As to the workmg hours of the radIo room, Ms. Courte stated that It was a 24 nour per day, seven day per week operation. Each day was divided mto two twelve-hour shifts lastmg from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. All dIspatchers except Ms. Courte rotated through these ShIftS. As the group leader, Ms. Courte worked steady days. Turnmg to the physIcal structure of the radIo room, Ms. Courte testified that It, was a separate room lo the protectIve servIces offices m the basement of the Mam LegIslatIve Building. The door to the radIO room was closed at all tImes, and It was soundproof. The OGPS sergeants had theIr office m the room next to the radIO room. The OPP ,staff sergeant and seFgeant had theIr offices down the hall adjacent to the receptIOn area for protectIve servIces. Ms: courte testIfied about the followmg features 0 Radio Equipment: As to the radIO eqUIpment m the radIO room, Ms. Courte stated that the radio was a 2-way channel radIo located dIrectly m front of the dIspatcher The mam channel was for the Ma10 LegIslatIve BUIldmg, the MacDonald Block, the Frost BUIldmgs, the Ombudsman's Office the 0 P P, the WhItney Block and Osgoode Hall The second channel was for the George Drew BUIldmg, the Brampton PolIce Academy and the Area Headquarters. ---- -.- - l ~ ( ( '. ., " " 7 All OGPS and OPP officers carned hand radIOS at all times. So dId the OOPS sergeant. The OPP sergeant and staff sergeant dId not carry radiOs at all tImes. If someone wIshed to speak to an officer, they would have to call the radIo room and request permIssIOn to use -the common channel. If there was no emergency or if the common channel was not already m use, the dIspatcher would grant permissIOn. CommunicatIOns to and between officers were ordered m thIS fashiOn, Ms. Courte testIfied, to aVOid confUSIOn. If an emergency occurred and an OGPS or OPP officer radiOed m and requested backup, Ms. Courte testified, the dIspatcher would immediately send another available of~cer to the scene. Which officer to be sent would be determmed by referring to the duty sheet. The dIspatcher would then ask the requesting officer for the nature of the SItuation. There would be no consultatiOn with the sergeant before dlspatchmg backup and no consultatIOn 'wlth the group leader before doing so There would be a post-dIspatch consultation WIth the sergeant where an officer suffered bodIly harm or his or her life was m danger Telephone System. The telephone system m the radIO room, Ms. Courte stated, was located dIrectly in front of the dIspatcher It had five mcommg lmes to receiVe calls from staff members m dIstress, the general pubhc, or other pohce agencIes. It also had 25 mcom1Og emergency hnes to receIve calls from 25 emergency telephones m the Mam LegIslative BUIldmg and the WhItney Block. These telephones were for the use of staff and VISItors. Once an emergency telephone was pIcked up, It ---- ~< I ( ." :..' '>' 8 rang dIrectly mto the radIO room. There also were five outgoing hnes. Three of them were dIrectly connected by speed dIal to the fire department, ambulance serVice and the Metro pohce Accordmg to Ms. Courte, the radio room received a lot of calls. There were eaSIly one hundred calls per day ShIft. 1 Log recordmg eqUIpment recorded all ingomg and outgomg calls, as well as all radIO transmIssions by the OGPS and OPP officers. The tapes were kept for about one month and then erased and reused. Duress Alarms. I , The duress alarm system, Ms. Courte said, was located to the left of the dispatcher, approximately three feet away on the wall of the console. There were four sepflrate duress alarm umts for four different sections. the MalO LegislatIve BuIlding, the Premier's office, the LIeutenant General's area m the north wmg of the bUIldlOg, and the WhItney block. Duress alarm buttons were located at each mImster's desk along wIth those of then receptionIst and executive assistant. They were hIdden from view There were approXImately 160 duress alarm buttons m the bUilding. As soon as a duress alarm button was pressed, the room number appeared on the screen of the duress alarm system along wIth the telephone number of the person who pushed the button. An electromc. beep would also I I ~~ . ( ( ~ " . 9 sound on a contmuous basIs. The dIspatcher would quickly note the phone and room numbers, and Immediately dIspatch two aVailable officers to the scene There would be no pnor consultation wIth anyone else. WhIle the officers were en route, the dIspatcher would telephone the person who pushed the button, Identify him or herself as secunty, ask questIOns as to the problem, and note the tone of the voice of the person for any mdlCatlOn of stress. Questions that would be asked would be ones that could be answered yes or no They mIght 10clude whether there were others 10 the room, whether they were armed, and, If so, whether they had a gun or a kmfe The dispatcher would remam on the hne untIl the officers arnved. He or she would also radIo the officers whIle they were en route to gIve them any details that had been learned about the sItuation. The dIspatcher would also fill out a duress alarm report. This report was reqUIJied to be completed every tIme a duress IlOe was activated. It reqUIred the dIspatcher to note the time, date location, IdentIty of the two officers who had been sent to the scene, and the outcome. The dIspatcher would also fill out an occurrence report. This was a report that had to be completed when an alarm was actIvated, when a theft was reported to the dIspatcher; when the dIspatcher receIved 1OformatlOn regardmg a demonstration, or, when a dIspatcher observed vandalIsm. On thIS report, the dIspatcher was reqUIred to record the type of occurrence the factual detaIls, the Identity of the officer dIspatched to the scene, the time and date of the occurrence, and the actlOn taken and results. Sometimes, Ms. Courte saId, the "actlOn and I ( .;.: (~ i' 10 results" section was filled out by the OOPS officer who had been dIspatched to the scene. Intrusion Alarms " Contmumg along wIth her descnptIon of the console m the radIo room, Ms. Courte stated that there were SImplex mtrusIOn alarms located m front of the dispatcher to the left of the phone on the console. These devices dIsplayed data from a number of laser sensors located m dIfferent confidential areas of the buIlding They detected temperature, the presence of any mtruder, and - / the presence of water If any of these dangers were detected, the screen would dIsplay the area of I I ongmatIOn and sound a contmuous beep The dIspatcher would then send two officers to the area. Once again, there would be no pnor consultatIOn WIth a sergeant or the group leader Fire Alarms The fire alarms, Ms. Courte saId, were located to the right of the dispatcher There were fire detectors throughout the malO buildmg, the attICS, and the WhItney tunnel. When an alarm went off, a buzzer sounded in the radio room and a siren sounded m the affected area. The dIspatcher would then send two officers WIth a sergeant to the locatIOn of the alarm. The locatIOn would have lIt up on the panel when the alarm was actIvated. The dIspatcher would then 1Ovoke a 10 3, which meant that there was an emergency SItuatIon and all umts had to stop commumcatmg over the radIO The dIspatcher would then call the FIfe -.--- - -- i " I ( I '. , '" . Ii' II Department and advise It of the location of the alarm and the qUIckest access route to the area. Because of the Importance of the structure of the bUlldmg, Ms. Courte saId, It was necessary to get the fire department m as soon as possIble. The dIspatcher would also ord~r evacuatIOn of the buIlding and would be responsible for ensunng that the evacuation announcement was properly made and all occupants were directed to the eXIts nearest to them. The dispatcher would then set the camera monitors on the four eXIts to ensure that the staff were leaving the buildmg. The dIspatcher would be the last to leave. Security Monitors Accordmg to Ms. Courte, there were nme secunty mOnItors m the radIO room, located directly to the left of the dIspatcher They were connected to thIrty-four cameras that w((re focused upon dIfferent areas. These mcluded the entrances to the bUIldmg, V I P areaS, the ArchIves, the exterior of the bUlld1Og, and, the House when it was SItting. The cameras were on a sequentIal switcher that changed the pIctures on the mOnItors every five seconds. It was the responsibIlIty of the dIspatcher to scan the mOnItors to look for SUSpiCIOUS actIvIty, SUSpICIOUS mdIvlduals, or acts of vandalIsm or theft. If any such activIty were spotted, the dIspatcher would report It Immediately to the OGPS or the opp and have someone attend to the area. The dIspatcher would then follow up by advIsmg the sergeant. VCR Equipment: , There were three VCR's m the radIO room. Ms Courte stated that these VCR'~ recorded the 23 ~~ ------- L ( ~ ( .. " ;: Ii' 12 I mtenor cameras. They ran for 24 hours per day, seven days per week. The videotapes were stored for two months. It was the responsibIlIty of the dIspatcher to change the videotapes every mght at midnight. Vital Information Services System (VISS) Computer Terminal. AccordIng to Ms. Courte, thIS was a multI-use terminal located to the nght of the dIspatcher on the console. Its data base included the IdentitIes of all staff who worked in the'Mam LegIslatIve BuildIng, includlOg contractors who were there temporanly It also Included vItal serVIces mformation, such as the telephone numbers of the nearest hospItals, police agencies, helIcopter I serVIces, etc Most Importantly, the data base mcluded the identIties, with photographs, histones and bIOgraphIes, where possible, of those people who were denied access to the bUIldmg or needed an appomtment to enter ThIS was called the Threatemng and EmbarraSSIng (T & E) file I Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) Terminal. ThIS term mal was also to the nght of the dIspatcher AccordIng to Ms. Courte, ItS data base held all of the cnmmal mformatIOn regardmg mdlvlduals With records. ThiS termInal could also access MinIstry of TransportatIOn records for driver's hcenses, etc It was the duty of the dIspatcher to check thIS term mal for cnmInal records and outstandmg warrants, If any, on I ( .. ~ " ." <i' 13 mdIvIduals who were quened by OOPS officers. Ms. Courte saId that she usually had to do about two hundred CPIC checks per month. The dIspatcher also was responsible for adding on mformatIOn to the CPIC data base regardmg cnmes that occurred on the premIses. ThIS informatIOn also was entered upon a CPIC add-on sheet that was checked by Ms. Courte before the informatIOn was added to the data base. Duties of Dispatchers During Demonstrations Ms. Courte also gave extensIve eVIdence regardmg the dutles of dIspatchers during demonstratIOns at Queen's Park. There were usually more than one hundred demonstratIOns scheduled per year Unfortunately, not all demonstratIOns were scheduled. About 20 percent of demonstratIOns were unscheduled. When a demonstratIOn was scheduled, the M.P.P who sponsored the demonstratIOn would-gIve the radIo room the estlmated SIze of the crowd, the tlme the demonstratIOn would take place, and the cause of the demonstrators None of thIS lOformatIon, of course, would be aVaIlable for unscheduled demonstrations. Ms Courte stated that dunng a demonstratIOn, the dIspatcher was responSIble to ensure that when backup was needed, or when requested by a sergeant, personnel were dIspatched ImmedIately Usmg the extenor cameras, whIch they were able to control from the radIO room, I ---.-- - .i 0: ( ( ;' ^ 'i:' '" 14 the dIspatchers were also responsible for monitonng the SIze of the crowd and adVISIng the staff sergeant whether the SIze of the crowd had Increased. It was not unusual for OOPS, OPP, and Metro police officers to be used for crowd control durmg demonstrations at Queen's Park. Ms. Courte said that 10 thIS event, the dIspatchers at Queen's Park would be responsible for communi~ation with the OOPS and OPP umts. There also were bomb dog and attack dog umts of the OPP that would carry Queen's Park radIos. The Metro police would have theIr own commander on sIte. DurIng demonstratIOns, Ms. Courte added, the dIspatchers continued to control the basement entrances to the buIlding. These were the entrances that were electromcally locked and momtored by cameras operated by the dIspatchers. Duties of Dispatchers During Bomb Threats AccordIng to Ms. Courte, there were a lot of bomb threats at Queen's Park. When a bomb threat was called In to the radio room, the dIspatcher would first ask what time the bomb was set to go off. He or she would then try to get as much further InfOrmatIOn as possible Once all possible mformatIOn had been obtamed, the dIspatcher would notIfy the staff sergeant. Then the search teams and evacuatIOn teams would be set up and the evacuatIOn of staff from the bUIldIng would proceed. ThIS would all occur withIn mInutes '. ( ( " 15 WhIle thIS was gomg on, the dIspatcher would also notIfy 52 dIvIsIOn of the Metro pohce regarding the sItuatIOn. The Metro pohce would be advIsed that if Queen's Park received further mformation or a bomb was found, they would be updated. If a bomb was found, the emergency dIsposal uOlt of the Metro polIce would immediately be called m. Dunng the bomb threat that was called m whIle the Board members were conducting theu first VIew of the radio room, Ms. Courte said, three bombs were found. Two were fake and one was real The latter had enough explosIve m it to blow off the hand of a person. Other Duties of Dispatchers. In the course of Ms. Courte's testImony, we were shown a number of forms that dIspatchers were reqUIred to fill out. Several of these were related to theIr performance of the functions descnbed above Others were thmgs lIke lost identIficatIOn card regIsters for staff or forms on WhICh the identItIes of persons entenng or leavmg the offices of staff members were recorded. The radIO room also had wIthm It CPIC manuals, a vItal serVIces dIrectory, PolIce Orders Part 9, an evacuatIOn manual and a hazardous matenals manual. PRFEX Test: Ms. Courte also testified that before bemg hued, dIspatchers at Queen's Park had to pass a PRFEX test. ThIS was a manual dextenty and memory retentIOn test. It sImulated the functIons of . r ( ,;~ , I .. ~' '" 16 a radIo room. In the memory retentlOn segment, the applIcant was gIven a lIst, reqUIred to lIsten to a story, and then asked questions regardlO~ vital lOformatlOn that he or she had retamed. Also, a lIst of vehIcle license plates was gIVen at varymg rates of speed to determIl.?-e If the applicant was able to WrIte them down. Fmally, a tape recordmg of a phone call from an hysterIcal person would be played to determlOe the reactIOn of the apphcant--whether the appl~cant would freeze or try to talk the person down from hIS or her level of hystena. Even after an applicant was hIred, he or she might be termmated If in the traIpmg perIod they were found to be inadequate. ThIS was not unusual. Ms. Courte testified that smce 1991, she had found only three out of eight candIdates to be sUItable. The rest had to be let go Treatment of People With Disabilities at the Queen's Park OPP Detachment: Ms. Courte also gave eVIdence regardmg her perception of the way in WhICh people wIth dIsabilities were treated at the Queen's Park opp detachment. The Queen's Park radio room was deSIgnated as a special affirmatIve actlOn program for handIcapped persons on December 10, 1986 Ms. Courte commenced her employment 10 1988 Her dIsabIhty was mdd cerebral palsy whIch affected her left sIde Shortly after she started, Ms Courte said, her supervIsor confided to her that she and the whole detachment had been qUIte nervous about havmg a person wIth cerebral palsy on the Job They thought that the dIsorder would .hmIt her speech and abIlIty to move about. She saId that she was .. r ( ~ .- r.- ~ .. 17 relIeved to see that Ms. Courte could walk and talk Ms. Courte saId that she was shaken by this. It showed that the detachment had Impressed upon her the stereotype of a cerebral palsy VICtIm, i.e., a person who could not walk or speak clearly The comment made her thmk that, contrary to her expectatIOns, she would not have any i opportunity for advancement but would be treated as if she should be thankful to be given the Job Upon cross-exammatlOn, however, Ms. Courte agreed that smce then, she had been promoted and that she had receIved numerous commendatIOn letters. Ms. Courte also testIfied that m 1992, OPP St~ff Sergeant Gary Skeldmg made disparaging comments to her about people with dIsabilItIes. She Said that he referred to the dIspatchers as "you people" ThIS mdlcated to Ms. Courte that he was puttmg a label on herself and the other dispatchers. ThiS made her feel humIliated. He also saId that the dispatchers at Queen's Park were not capable of domg some of the more technIcal aspects of the Job, lIke addmg; informatIOn onto the CPIC data base. He Said that he dId not think that they could handle such a task and that he also had concerns about the abIlity of, the dispatchers to make deCisions These comments were made dUrIng dISCUSSIOns that Ms. Courte had WIth Staff'Sergeant Skeldmg I ! regardmg the reclaSSIfication of the dispatchers from the CO I level They were made, she said, dunng reclaSSIficatIOn dISCUSSIOns and m formal gnevance meetmgs. The general attitude m the detachment toward the disabled dispatchers 10 the radio room was also -- - ----- B ( .- 18 reflected In vanous comments and put-downs dIrected toward them by some of the OGPS and \, opp officers, Ms. Courte said. She had been called a gimp or hmpy The radIO room was commonly referred to as the cage. She had heard the other dIspatchers beIng subjected to the same dIsparaging remarks, although they were never made m the presence of a sergeant or staff sergeant. In late 1993, Ms. Courte complained about an excerpt from the 1992 annual report that was reproduced In the Sentinel, an OGPS newsletter The annual report and the artIcle stated, " The dutIes of [ the communicatIOns centre] are performed by phYSIcally challenged communications operators." She asked why it had to be pubhshed that she was a "physIcally challenged" communicatIOns operator In her opInion, thIS constituted labelmg and had nothing to do WIth her Job She wanted a retractIOn. When she met WIth Staff Sergeant Skelding to obtam hIS assistance m gettIng a retractIOn, Ms. Courte said, he reSIsted. He asked whether the statement was not factual. Ms. Courte agreed that It was but that she objected to the labehng. She explalOed that she had been lageled all her hfe as handicapped and she dIdn't feel that she should be labeled lo her workplace as well. When counsel for the employer suggested upon cross-eXamInatIOn that because the r~dIO room was a specific project for the dIsabled it was appropnate for the employer to want people to know that the detachment had thiS program, Ms. Courte became exasperated. She said, "When does the labelIng stop? " i' I ( \ " 'i' 19 , I Ms. Courte added that Staff Sergeant Skeldmg also Said that she shouldn't be complammg about such issues and should be grateful to have a Job such as she dId. This upset her, she said. It made her feel guilty, that maybe she dIdn't have a right to complain and should be happy to have a Job After this dIScuSSIon, Ms. Courte said, she had an mformal dIscuSSIOn WIth Inspector Arbour, the head of Queen's Park Services. When he asked her what the big concern was, she reIterated that she had been labeled all her hfe and dId not think It fair that she stIll was bemg labeled. His reply was that he had a quota of dIsabled people to fill and therefore It should be made publIc. To thIS, Ms. Courte testified, she rephed that if this was hIS attItude why dId he not publish the numbers of whIte, female & non-whIte OGPS officers he had. Why were they not beulg labeled as the dIspatchers were A short tIme later, however, on October 25, 1983, Inspector Arbour Issued a letter of apology to all dIspatchers for the use m the annual report and the Sentinel of a phrase that they perceIved as being dISCrImmatory or embarrassing. The letter stated that whIle it would not be appropnate to publIsh a retraction in the Sentmel, Inspector Arbour had dIscussed theIr concerns With those who prepared the Sentmel artIcle and the annual report, and assured Ms Courte and the other dIspatchers that there would be no recurrence (2) Janet Lee: Ms Lee was one of the gnevors. She stated that her dIsabIlIty was an impaIrment to her left arm I I i ~--~--_.- --- -- . ( ( ~),"! " ~ 20 resultmg from a chIldhood accIdent. She commenced employment 10 the radIO room at Queen's Park in July, 1991 Ms Lee's testImony will not be revIewed m detail Much of it confirmed the eVIdence of Ms. Courte regardlOg the duties performed by dIspatchers m the radio room. There were some aspects of her testImony, however, that should be mentIOned. These were as follows Ms. Lee testIfied that it often was the case m her Job that more than one thmg happened at a tIme. She gave the example of a fire alarm going off at the same time as an assault was occurring in the MacDonald Block. When thIS happened, she saId, It was necessary for her to pnontize among the mCldents. She would set these prIorItIes on her own, gIven that tIme was of the essence. Upon cross-exammatIOn, Ms. Lee vIgorously dIsputed an assertIOn by employer counsel that the employer's WItnesses would say that 95 percent of the calls that she receIved were non-emergent m nature She Said that the ratio was 50-50 at least. As to the geography of the Queen's Park detachment, Ms. Lee stated that It was dIfficult to learn. The propertIes were scattered WIth extenSIve mterconnectmg tunnels. There were also out of the way attics, hidaways, and the hke She added that many tImes people would call the radIO room to say that they knew they were lo the B I level of the garage but had no Idea of where that was 10 relatIOn to then destmation. That, she Said, was why it was important for her to know Ms. Lee added that about 3,800 people worked 10 the Mam LegIslatlve Bmldmg and t):1e WhItney Block. Another 15,000 worked m the MacDonald Block. - --.- 1 ( ( .'\~ '~ i' ~ 'i' " 21 Counsel for the UnIon then drew the attentIOn of Ms. Lee to the reasons set out on her positIon specIficatIOn by evaluator T Landry for classlfymg her pOSition at the CO 1 level These reasons were as follows A. Incumbents perform communicatIOn dutIes by sendmg and,receIvmg radio I transmIssions at Queen's Park uslOg a fixed two-way radIO InformatIon flows accordmg to estabhshed procedure between incumbents and security or police personnel. B Incumbent responds to requests for emergency vehicles and mOnItors the Duress and Fire Alarm systems. SItuations not covered by establIshed guidelmes would be referred to group leader or Detachment uniformed personnel. C Incumbent responsible for mamtalli.mg log of securIty personnel and mamtainmg radio contact to determine their locatIOn. When asked whether she agreed with these reasons, Ms. Lee said she did not. As to reason A., she Said that she dId not agree that there was any establIshed procedure. The only established procedures that she was aware of related to fire alarms. As to'reason B., she Said that she agreed with the first sentence but dIsagreed WIth the second. Because .tIme was so cntIcal, she saId, she would not Wait for dIrectIOn from someone else before ac;tmg but would act on her own InItIatIve. As to reason C , she Said, it was absolutely Important to remain calm m her pOSItIOn because of what might be hangmg in the balance Ms Lee went on to say that she dId not belIeve that the Job descnptIOn descnoed the whole of the Job that she dId. The larger purpose of the Job, she Said, was to prOVIde protectIOn to the ( ( \\, ~ ; ~ 22 Queen's Park commumty and high government officials, as well as hIstoncal.propertIes, etc The job descnptIOn also dId not reflect the degree of mdependence that she and her colleagues had. There was no close supervIsion or dIrectIon. The Job was constantly changing, with addItIonal responsibIlItIes and functions bemg added. Also, the Job descnptIOn dId not reflect the emergent nature of the Job. The dIspatchers did not Just answer telephones and the hke Turning to her impressIOn of the attItude of OGPS personnel at Queen's Park toward persons wIth dIsabIlItIes, Ms. Lee said that she felt that qUIte often she was bemg treated dIfferently, m that she did not always thmk that she got the respect that she deserved from the people wIth whom she worked. GIVen her number of years of expenence, Ms. Lee saId, she felt that her talents and skills were deserving of respect. The only thmg to whIch she belIeved she could attribute thIS lack of respect, was the fact that she was dIsabled. y In contrast to her treatment, Ms. Lee went on, and able-bodIed dIspatcher who. worked at the radIO room for awhIle, Mr Gary MacGregor, seemed to be treated wIth more respect. After Mr MacGregor left, she said, an OGPS officer lIl,dIcated to her that he thought that Mr MacGregor was the only person in the radIO room deservmg of the title of dIspatcher Another OGPS officer made a comment questIOning whether she could proVIde reliable backup Ms. Lee also testIfied that whIle she had never been called names, she had heard other dIspatchers bemg called names. The radIo room, she saId was referred to as "the cage" or "the hole" She Said that she found the word "cage" the most offenSIve because she was not an ammal. --- ---- --- '. \ ( \' ~ .. '! '" 23 , I She added, " Mmd you, last week I was told that a tramed monkey could do my Job" (3) Eleanor Carter" Ms. Carter apparently was called to testify because she had been an RO 2 at an OPP detachment m Bracebndge before becommg the communicatIOns supervIsor in the radIO room at Queen's Park from 1989 to 1991 She was not dIsabled. At the time she decided to go to Queen's Park, the I radIO room at her detachment was bemg consohdated mto a new commUnIcations centre m BarrIe, and she dId not want to move there. A further attraction of the job at <Queen's Park was that it represented a promotion, m that she would hold the higher classificatIOn of RO 3 mstead of RO 2. In hght of this, It seemed that Ms. Carter was suited to testIfy about the simIlarIties and dIstinctIOns between the dutIes of dIspatchers m the field and dIspatchers at Queen's Park -- at least as those duties eXIsted m the field pnor to consohdation of the detachment radIO rooms mto DIstnct CommuOlcatIOn Centres. Ms. Carter testIfied that all of the dIspatchers in the Bracebridge 'detachment were claSSIfied as RO 2's. There were no RO 1 'So Accordmg to Ms. Carter, the radIO room m Bracebndge was SImIlar to the one at Queen's Park. She agreed upon cross-exammatIOn that because thIS was a smaller radIO room that pre-dated the current DIstnct CommUnICatIOn Centres, there was no automated microwave system for the use of dIspatchers m makmg "all tower calls" She also agreed that there was no OMP AC system for recording mCIdent reports. She saId that thIS system was commg 10 Just before she left. At that tIme, the radIO room covered the area from HuntsvIlle ----- .~ i I ,~ \ ~ ~ , 24 m the North to Onlha m the South, and from Bala in the West to Haliburton-Mmden m the East. When asked about the nature of her work as a dIspatcher in the Bracebndge detachment, Ms. \ Carter said that she took calls from the publIc and dIspatched OPP crUIsers and emergency vehIcles, mcludmg tow trucks, etc. The calls from the public mcluded everythmg from deaths, car accIdents, assaults, or domestIc disputes right down to children stealIng apples from trees. There was a mIX of serIOUS and not so serIOUS calls. At the time, she saId, there was no 911 servIce provIded by the dIspatchers in Bracebndge but the OPP were the only Police Department m the area. Generally, she Said, each dIspatcher dIspatching around 6 cars, WIth one officer per cruiser The number of cruIsers could be hIgher or lower dependmg upon what was happenmg. The maXImum, however, would be 7 When asked whether the work of the dispatchers m the field was identical to t~at of the dIspatchers at Queen's Park, Ms. Carter Said no She said that the dIspatchers at Queen's Park had responsIbIlitIes that the dIspatchers in the field did not. They had to respond to duress alarms, fire alarms, and demonstratIOns. The latter were the result of the VIP aspect of Queen's Park. Ms Carter added that nevertheless, there were sImIlanties. The dIspatchers at Queen's Park stIll took calls from the pubhc, dIspatched OPP and OGPS Officers, performed CPIC mqumes, etc. They also had to know proper radIO procedures and how to pnontIze calls. Upon cross-exammatIOn, she agreed that the Cnminal Code actIvity m Bracebndge was sIgmficantly greater than that handled by the dIspatchers in Queen's Park. --- , " 'j I ( . ~.... " ~ 25 As to the skIlls of the dIspatchers m the field and at Queen's Park, Ms. Carter testified that they were SImIlar Both types of dIspatchers had to know proper radIO procedures, IncludIng the IO-code, and CPIC They both had to have the abIlity to stay calm under pressure and to pnontIze theIr calls. As to the former, Ms. Carter Said that It was very Important not to get excIted when people around you were excited. The dispatcher needed to stay calm, to provide aSSIstance to the officers. They had to keep a cool head In order to recall which officer was closest to proVIde backup and where all of the other officers were. If thIngs got messy m the /' LegIslature, she added, the dIspatchers at Queen's Park would have to get help up there very qUIckly Ms. Carter also testlfied,that she dId not belIeve that the dIspatchers at Queen's Park worked under any closer superviSIOn than the dIspatchers In the field. If an officer were been dIspatched at Queen's Park, she Said, there would not be any pnor consultatIOn WIth the supervIsor The dIspatcher would make an Independent assessment. She added that, as the superVIsor, she was In and out of the radIO room. She wa~ not there all of the tIme. When asked to compare workmg with the large area covered by the Bracebndge detachment and the more compact area covered by the Queen's Park detachment, Ms. Carter saId that It was eaSIer to learn the geography of Muskoka than the geography of Queen's Park. The number of people III the more concentrated area of Queen's Park durmg the day, she Said, was eqUIvalent to 2-3 tImes the populatIOn of the towns of Muskoka. The dispatchers at Queen's'Park, she added, ( ( r :; ~ .. 26 also had a number of satelhte places to be responsIble for I SummIng up her testimony, Ms. Carter said that the level of the work of dispatchers was the same In the field and at Queen's Park. They had to know the same thmgs. The calls mIght dIffer, she said, but the abilIty to respond to them reqUired the same attnbutes. (4) Carol Baird The final witness on behalf of the UnIon was Ms. BaIrd. She had been an OUp,S officer at Queen's Park smce 1989 Essentially, Ms. Baird's testimony related to the nature of the duties performed by an OGPS officer and an incIdent in whIch she was Involved that indIcated to her a negatIve attItude of the part of one of her superIors toward a temporary handIcap that she suffered. As to the nature of her dutIes, Ms. BaIrd testified that she pnmarIly performed securIty I functIOns, although she had some policmg functIOns as well Her security functIOns mvolved bemg stationed at various posts In the Mam LegIslatIve Bmldmg and respondmg to thmgs lIke unlocked doors or "key calls", which mvolved gettmg a key to the office of an MPP or staffer There were a lot of key calls, she testified upon cross-exammatlOn. On a gIVen day, she would get 30 to 40 such calls per twelve hour day ShIft. Accordmg to Ms Baud, her pohcmg functIOns mamly Involved crowd control In scheduled and i iF ( :'- 27 unscheduled demonstratIOns at Queen's Park. In demonstratIOns, she said, the oaps officers were 111 the front 1111e TheIr role was to ensure that a demonstration dId not get out of control, and If It dId, to stop the demonstrators from causing 111JUry to person or damage to the property They shared thIS role wIth the OPP officers, whIle Metro police officers normally acted as backup ! i Upon cross-exam111atIOn, Ms. Baud agreed that for oaps officers 111volved ill controllIng scheduled demonstratIOns, the steps of the LegIslature constituted the front line. The grounds of \ the LegIslature were looked after by opp officers and Metro polIce. In unscheduled demonstratIOns, however, she said that it might be necessary for oaps officers to go out onto the grounds. Dunng demonstratIOns, Ms. Baud Said, the dIspatchers were the life-line for her and her fellow officers. She said that If she were 111 trouble, she would want ImmedIate backup If the dIspatcher dId not respond ImmedIately, It could mean the hfe or death of a person. She added that If a dIspatcher did not rema111 c~lm, It could have great ramIficatIOns. The officers: could be m a lot of trouble The officers always let the dIspatchers know what was going on dunng a demonstratIOn. If the demonstratIOn got out of control, they would need the dispatchers to send aSSIstance as soon as pOSSIble Upon cross-exammatIOn. Ms. Baird was asked whether, despIte her 111volvement 111 controllmg demonstratIOns from tIme to tIme, her pnmary functIOn was to perform secunty-type work. She I I I I I r:; i ( i I r, 28 agreed, however, she refused to accept the suggestIOn of counsel for the employer that only about 15 percent of her dutIes involved polIce functIOns. She did agree that m her 7-8 years of expenence, she had never performed a crimmal investigatIOn. Turmng to the mCIdent that occurred when she suffered a temporary dIsabIlIty, Ms. BaIrd said that m December, 1995, she slIpped and fell on some Ice and had to wear a cast on her left leg for SIX weeks. Despite this, she saId, she returned to work m a wheelchair two days later because her platoon needed help She worked her regular 12-hour mIdmght ShIft, and then stayed on for an overtime ShIft to assist fellow officers dunng the annual New Year's Day LIeutenant Governor's Levee. At the outset of her overtIme shIft, Ms. BaIrd saId, she and her fellow officers attended a briefing by opp Sergeant Joe Mautl. When the bnefing was over Sergeant MautI approached her and told her that she was an embarrassment to the orgamzatIOn. Ms. BaIrd turned and saId, "excuse me?" Sergeant MautI replIed that he was sorry, but a lot of brass from the OPP would be at the Levee and how could Ms. Baird represent herself as a polIce officer upholdmg peace and lookmg like thIS, i. e , in a wheelchair WIth a cast on her leg. ThIS comment was made 10 the presence of others, mc1udmg Ms. Courte. Later m the day, Ms. Baird was on a break and went to talk to her OGPS Sergeant. On the way, she agam encountered Sergeant Mautl. He asked her where she was gomg When she replIed that ; she was gomg to take her break like everyone else, he Said, "Don't bother The brass are stIll m .,. ( ( '. " r. 29 there. It's too embarrassmg. I'll have somebody get your coffee for you." Ms. BaIrd said that she was dIsgusted and let Sergeant MautI know how she felt. She then proceeded toward the washroom. ThIS time, she ran mto Mr Thomas O'Grady, the OPP CommIssIOner, and two other hIgh OPP officIals. They asked her what happened and when she told them, they saId that It was commendable that she was on duty in the condItion that she was m. ... Upon cross-exammatIOn, Ms. Baud agreed that she receIved triple tIme m wages for her overtlme ShIft at the Levee and that for four weeks afterwards, she was off work due to her mJury She said that she was off work for thIS amount oftlme because she had brought in a request for light duty when she reported for her mIdmght shift after bemg mJured and thIS request was turned down. III. The Evidence for the Employer. Three WItnesses testIfied for the employer Ms. Yolanda Sunnerton, Sergeant iJoe MautI, and Staff Sergeant Gary Skeldmg. TheIr eVIdence was as follows. (1) Yolanda Sunnerton Ms. Sunnerton was a dIspatcher at the OPP commUnICatIOns centre m Aurora. ThIS commumcatIons centre covered the Greater Toronto area. Ms Sunnerton had been a dIspatcher SInce 1981 Pnor to the 1989 consolIdatIOn of detachment radIO rooms, Ms Sunnerton was a ----- ; ~ i ( \\'<; '!:' \' " 30 dIspatcher at the DownSVIew detachment. Ms. Sunnerton testIfied that she had expenence dlspatchmg OPP UnIts to homIcIdes and all other CrImInal Code occurrences, as well as NarcotIcs Control Act, Young Offenders Act, LIquor Control Act, RestrIcted Drugs Act, and other offenses under provIncIal statutes. Her dutIes and related tasks mcluded the follOWIng i Responding to Incoming Telephone Calls. Ms. Sunnerton testified that there were five Internal telephone lmes,five 800;lmes for general use, one telephone for the desk, dIrect lInes to other commumcatIOns centres, two external office lmes, two unlIsted lInes going out, a dIrect lIne to the Mimstry of Transport, ~hree dIrect lInes to ambulance serVIces, 911 lInes for the 905 area code, two 911 hnes for Peel, two 911 hnes for York RegIOn, one 911 hne for Durham, and a dIrect hne to the Metro Toronto polIce There also were four T I U lInes, WhICh allowed officers to speak dIrectly to the crUIsers. All of these hnes came Into her console. AccordIng to Ms Sunnerton, about 90 percent of the calls that she receIved on these hnes were for pollee attentIOn. The callers needed polIce to deal WIth aCCIdents, 911 emergencIes, etc Only ten percent were general Inquiry calls, askmg for InfOrmatIOn. On a normal s~nny day, she would receIve about one hundred telephone calls, on a stormy day In the wmter she said, she personally would receIve about two hundred calls. - ----- - iF' ( ( .~ .. " 31 Upon cross-exammatIon, Ms. Sunnerton refused to agree with a suggestIOn of counsel for the UnIon that most of the occurrences mvolved in these telephone calls related to motor vehicle accIdents. She said that the number of calls for accIdents was hIgh, but she also receIved high numbers of calls for other occurrences, such as residentIal and busmess alarms, break and enters, and traffic control. As to the latter, Ms. Sunnerton saId, these calls would be from officers seeking CPIC check on persons they stopped for speeding or other traffic offences. Alarm calls were from alarm companies that had receIved sIgnals mdIcatmg that propertIes they covered had been broken mto As to 911 calls, Ms. Sunnerton said that because of their emergent nature they' were desIgnated as pnonty calls. She Said that upon receIvmg such a call, the dIspatcher would ask for the nature of the emergency and ensure that the caller gIves the address. The dispatcher them would determme whether pohce, ambulance, or fire serVIce was reqUIred. Dependmg upon the seventy of the occurrence gIving nse to the call, Ms. Sunnerton went on, the dIspatcher mIght be reqUIred to stay on the line until officers arrIved on the scene. On her console, Ms. Sunnerton Said, there was a 911 monitor whIch gave the address from whIch the call was placed. Also displayed were the closest ambulance, police, and fire departments. The dIspatchers were the ones to deCIde whIch to dIspatch. Ms. Sunnerton stated that there were three pnonty ratmgs that were used by dIspatchers at the ! . i ( ~ \ ~ .. ~ 32 Aurora commUnIcations centre "I" for hIghest pnority; "2" for medIUm prIOrIty, and, "3" for lowest priOrIty For the most part, she saId, the dIspatchers relIed upon then own experIence and common sense m decidmg which pnority to aSSIgn to a partIcular call For e)l:ample, she saId, a low prionty would be assIgned to a report of debrIs on the roadway A higher pnorIty would be assIgned to a non-injury auto accident. The highest pnonty would be assIgned to an auto accIdent mvolvmg mJury After an occurrence was called m, she saId, the dIspatchers would tell the caller that they had the mformatIon and assistance would be there as quickly as possible. When asked upon cross-exammatIOn to describe what she dId in a top pnority SItuatIOn, Ms. Sunnerton related her experience WIth a fatal accIdent that occurred on Highway 10 at 9 00 a.m. on the Tuesday before she testIfied. She saId that she dispatched several crUIsers to the scene by callmg them up on the tower It was up to her, she added, to determme the nurpber ofumts to , send. Accordmg to establIshed procedure, they had to mclude InvestigatIon, technIcal and traffic control units. She then WaIted until the officers arrIved upon the scene and confirmed to her the SItuatIOn. In thIS case, she SaId, the officers asked her to dIspatch the coroner to the scene. She also dIspatched the MIUlstry of Transport to close the hIghway All of thIS was accomplIshed whIle she fielded other ongomg calls. In domg so, Ms. Sunnerton SaId, she acted on her own. 'She dId notIfy the OPP supervIsor when It was confirmed to her that there was a "fatal" at the scene. Operating and Controlling the Console: Ms. Sunnerton testIfied that there were three SIdes to her console FIrst, there was the OPP ~ I ( :> \ .\ - 33 commumcatlOns system, whIch allowed mUnIcIpal and OPP police departments to talk to each other She said that this system was used If there was a pursuit and the perpetrator was traveling from one JurisdIctIOn to another Referrmg to a zone map, WhICh showed the zones to whIch OPP cruisers were assIgned, Ms. Sunnerton said that if a suspect were m, e. g., zone 2, she would brmg up all towers to talk to all cars to determine which UnIt might be closer -- the zone I or zone 3 car -- if the zone 2 car were I unaVailable ThIS would be her decIsion. Then, she saId, she would bnng the 'zone 4 and 5 cars m closer in case they were needed. If the suspect got into an accIdent, she said, she would call the ambulance and fire departments. If the suspect were to leave the car and flee on foot, she would handle any request from the officers on the scene to brmg m the zone I and zone 3 cars, and obtam a canme UnIt. The console also had a telephone console and a SImplex channel for OPP commUnICatIOn. ThIS channel, Ms. Sunnerton explamed, was strictly for OPP crUisers. All crUisers m the area would be on thIS channel. Each crUiser had three radIOS, all tuned to dIfferent channels On the SImplex channel, all OPP crUisers could be on the aIr at the same tIme The console had on It a visual display UnIt. ThIS showed where the cruisers were, whIch were on duty and whIch were off duty There also were two 911 VIdeo dIsplay screens and a DMP AC computer system upon WhICh the dIspatcher entered an occurrence report for every call. ThIS system also was used for CPIC checks because the CPIC was built fIght mto It. On average, Ms. ---- - - n_ ___ j .~ \ ( ., .. 34 Sunnerton testified, she performed 50 to 60 CPIC checks 10 a 12-hour ShIft. When asked how long It took before she had learned the Job, Ms. Sunnerton replIed that It took about a year before she felt comfortable in the Job As to tra1Oing, Ms. Sunnerton saId that dIspatchers took a two-week radIo trammg course 10 OnllIa and one week of OMP AC tram10g when that system was first mtroduced. The rest was on-the-Job traimng, where the new dIspatcher was teamed up wIth a supervisor to work one detachment area for a month or two, i dependmg upon the 10dIvidual There also was a library of manuals for dIsaster situations like aIrplane crashes, trucks transporting dangerous goods, etc Ms. Sunnerton added that she had 10 the past had reason to consult the manuals in the library In her cross-exammation, Ms. Sunnerton was asked about dispatchmg boats, hehcopters and canine umts. As to dIspatching boats, Ms. Sunnerton saId that m the summer qlOnths she had to I dIspatch boats perhaps once every two to three days. As to hehcopters, she dId not really dIspatch them. The flIght plans of the helIcopter from general headquarters were aVaIlal;>le to her by computer If a more urgent call were to come up, she could, WIth permIssIOn from general headquarters, divert the helicopter to It. As to canme units, the dIspatcher would suggest callmg one 10 and the mvestIgatmg officer or his Sergeant would make the determmatIOn whether they reqUired it. Ms. Sunnerton also was asked about the role of the Sergeant m the radIO room. She rephed that the Sergeant handled calls from the medIa, looked after the ePIC, looked after the alarm system -- ----- . ( ( ", ~ " . - 3S mdIcatmg dIfficulties at the tower sIte, and monitored pursUits., BasIcally, she said, the Sergeant took the pulse of what was going on m the radIo room. He did not make any decIsIOns unless requested to do so She said that the dIspatchers usually did not ask the Sergeant for authonty The Sergeant would be notified if there was a more CrItIcal sItuatIOn, such as an evacuatIon of a home for the elderly or a downed aIrplane. (2) Sergeant Joe Mauti. Sergeant Mauti testIfied that he had been the Operations Manager of the LegIslative Security ServIce for three and a half years. He reported to the Staff Sergeant. He was responsible for 50 OGPS Officers, 4 OPP Officers, 2 secretanes, and, the radIO room staff. As a.result, he was familIar WIth the work of the radIO room operators Sergeant Mauti also testified that he was familIar WIth the work of the dIspatchers m Aurora because he was the Sergeant m the radIO I room at that locatIOn for three and a half years before commg to Queen's Park. Sergeant MautI described the work of the dIspatchers at Queen's Park as pnmanly takmg calls from the publIc, legIslative staff, and secretarial staff. They would accept calls on the commumcatIOns system and take and log the mformatIOn. They would relay 11lformatIOn from the OOPS Sergeant to the officers who were workmg that day They also momtored cameras, duress alarms and fire alarms, and gave out CPIC mformatIOn. When asked to compare the work of the dIspatchers at Queen's Park to that of those at Aurora, . I ( '. \ ., , 36 Sergeant Mauti said that the dIspatchers at Aurora accepted calls from cruisers -- not OGPS Officers walkIng wIth handsets -- wantmg CPIC checks, takIng calls from the pubhc, and dIspatchIng umts. The maJonty of the calls at Aurora would involve sendIng officers to accIdent scenes. At Queen's Park, he said, the fire and duress alarm calls were maInly false alarms. They resulted from malfunctIOns or accIdents. Calls of an emergent nature were only five to ten percent of the calls. Calls of an emergent nature at Aurora were 30 to 40 percent of calls. There also were demonstratIOns at Queen's Park, Sergeant MautI acknowledged, but he saId that only a small percentage of these were violent, In the sense that assaults or property damage took place. In the tIme that he had been at Queen's Park, Sergeant Mauti said, there were only three to four vIOlent demonstrations. When asked about the inCIdent wIth Ms. Carol Baud, Sergeant Mauti said that the day before January 1, she phoned him at home and told him that she'd hurt her ankle When he asked how bad It was, she rephed that It was not bad and she could do her duties. She assured him that she could do her regular duties. As a result, he saId, he was surpnsed when Ms. BaIrd reported to work m a wheelchaIr He confronted her She offered no explanatIOn. In hght 6fher Injury, he said, he had to remove her from her ongInal postIng, WhICh was a posItIon 10 whIch she had to i open and close doors, and escort people up and down staIrs. He had to SWItch her to a booth at EXIt 6 where she could SIt and dIrect people as they came In. It was also the wheelchair entrance Sergeant MautI stated that he told Ms. Baird that she had compromised her safety because she _.~-------- -- - -- - - -- -- - - -.. - '-~ ( ( ~; .~ i' . 37 could not defend herself If there were trouble that day In fact, he said, they were antiCIpating trouble and dId have people that day who had to be phYSIcally removed from the premIses ImtIally, Sergeant MautI said, Ms. BaIrd refused to go to EXIt 6 and finally, reluctantly went there. Sergeant MautI also testified that he dId not play any role m determming the ~lassIfication of the , dIspatchers at Queen's Park (3) Staff Sergeant Gary Skelding: Staff Sergeant Skeldmg testIfied that he was OperatIOns Manager at the Queen's Park detachment from 1984 to 1987 At that time, he said, the radiO room was staffed by OGPS Officers. When he heard about a new government program to hIre phySically challenged persons? he said, the radIO room seemed to be an Ideal locatIOn. He made a suggestIOn to use the prograq1 to staff thIS area. He said that a SIde benefi~ would be to free up the OGPS officers from the radIO room. His deCISIOn was adopted and a Waiver was obtamed from the Human RIghts CommiSSIon. He then returned to Queen's Park on June I, 1992, as the Detachment Commander He soon became mvolved m attemptmg to reVIew the claSSIficatIOn of the gnevors Apparently, when he consulted the Human Resources Department about advertlSlng the superVisory pOSitIOn m the radIO room as a CO 3, Human Resources deCIded to make a reView of the pOSitIOns m the radio room because the people being superVIsed were only claSSIfied at the CO I level Staff Sergeant I --~ ? ( ( ~,i:;. ~ .. 38 Skeldmg was asked to review the Job specifications for the dIspatchers and the dIspatcher-supervIsor wIth the assistance of Allanna Courte. According to Staff Sergeant Skelding, before the specificatIOns were sent to the Human Resources Department, they were completely revIewed by hIm and Ms. Courte, and both ofthem agreed to what would be m the Job specIfications. He denIed that durmg discussIOns around reclassIfication he saId to Ms. Courte that the dispatchers were not competent to fulfill the technIcal aspects of the job, such as fillmg m the CPIC data. He pointed out that the Job specification for the dIspatchers stated that thIS was one of theIr duties. The first tIme that a dIspute materiahzed, he Said, was when the job specificatIOns came back classIfied at the CO 1 and CO 2 levels. Upon cross-exammation, Staff Sergeant Skeldmg stated that It was not surprismg to him that the supervIsory positIOn was reclaSSIfied downward to a CO 2 level and the dispatchers remamed at the CO I level. He saId that there was a very good reason for advertismg the ongmal Job for the supervIsor as a "3" The Queen's Park detachment wanted to get the best person It could to come m and set up an entlrely new communicatIOns centre It was felt, he saId, that they had to have a "3" to entice the best person to take on thIS very dIfficult job . Staff Sergeant Skeldmg also denIed makmg any dIsparaging remarks about phYSIcally challenged people, such as referrmg to them when speakmg to Ms. Courte as "you people" He Said he would not try to categorIze the dIspatchers like that. He saId that m meetings he could very well ( ( I .. (., - 39 have said to vanous groups, "you people wIll do thIS, and Allanna, you people wIll do that." ThIs, he said, would not carry any negative connotatIOns. Turmng to the appearance m the Sentmel of the term "physically challenged", Staff Sergeant Skeldmg Said that he had no prior knowledge of this before the article appeared. When Ms. I Courte's dIscussed the issue with him, he said, he then read the story He took exceptIOn to it. I I The term physically challenged had no relevance to the story He then went to the Area Commander to express hIS concern and asked hIm to issue an apology He would not. According to Staff Sergeant Skelding, he then went back and apologized to the dIspatchers in the radIO room hImself. They felt that hIS apology was not sufficient and followed up with a meeting WIth the Inspector When asked whether he ever told Ms. Courte that she should not complam but be happy that she had a Job, Staff Sergeant Skeldmg replIed that he never in his life made such a statement to her or any other person. He noted that there was a disabled dIspatcher named Ms. Robbins who went on from being a CO 1 at Queen's Park to become a CO 2 at the Burhngton commumcatIOns centre He said that he encouraged the dIspatchers at Queen's Park to move ahead by recommendmg to them that they should apply for CO 2 pOSItions in the field. Upon cross-exammatIOn? Staff Sergeant Skeldmg agreed that Ms. Robbms was the daughter of Supenntendent Marty Robbms of BelleVIlle When asked what he perceIved to be the dIfference between the dIspatchers m the field and those -- --- ---- --- -- - ! ~ I ( '.j.~ ~ .. 40 , at Queen's Park, Staff Sergeant Skeldmg said that If he had a senous accIdel.1t to mvestIgate, he would call the dIspatchers at the communicatIOns centre m the field and ask for a pen meter They t> would set It up, mcludmg road blocks, etc., all on their own. The same woufd be true If he, mstead, had a chemIcal spdl. They relIed upon the dispatchers m the field to exerCIse I considerable inItiative. On the other hand, he said, the dIspatchers at Queen's Park for the most part sent OGPS Officers to theIr posts and conveyed messages to them at thelf posts, or sent key persons to unlock doors, etc They did have crowd control responsIbIlItIes, etc., he said, but that was the exceptIOn not the , rule In the field, It was an everyday occurrence to have serious IncIdents such as fires, aCCIdents, chemIcals spdls, etc. When asked whether he agreed that the OPP secunty people at Queen's Park dId a difficult Job, Staff Sergeant Skeldmg replIed that the most dIfficult part was fightmg boredom. Unless there was a demonstration or VIP VISIt, he saId, It was total boredom -- nothmg forthem to do but watch people m the buildmg and sit in on the questIOn and answer penod In the LegIslature As to the OGPS officers, he said, theIr Jobs were bonng too They were posltIon~d at doors and had to stand there for a ShIft, watchmg people come m and go out. The only time It got excltmg was dunng demonstratIOns. / Staff Sergeant Skeldmg also was asked upon cross-exammatIOn whether the OPP officers statiOned at Queen's Park were paid at the same rate as OPP officers m the field. He rephed that i ,~ iF \ I , '" 41 they were, even though theIr work was very dIfferent. IV The View Taken by the Board At the outset of the hearmg upon the ments, the Board was requested to take a VIew of the radIO room at Queen's Park and the dIspatch centre of the OPP at Peterborough, Ontano We agreed to do so Our first stop was the radio room at Queens Park, however, no sooner had we commenced takmg our VIew than a bomb threat took place and we were forced to evacuate the buildmg. We then proceeded to Peterborough. The VIew of the radIO room at Queen's Park was taken on a subsequent day Our observatIOns of both of these operatIOns were as follows I I I Peterborough OPP Dispatch Centre: ThIS was the smallest dIspatch centre m the opp organIZatIOn. It had five consoles -- four for the use of the dIspatchers and one for theIr supervIsor ThIS centre handled all commUnICatIOns for the opp detachments in a WIde area, mcluding HaldImand, Victona,Peterborough, and Northumberland counties, as well as some of Algonqum Park. It was part of a centralIzed dIspatch operatIOn that came mto effect m 1989-90 Pnor to that, the detachments had theIr own radIO rooms. Each console m the dIspatch centre had the followmg features \. ( j . .. 42 (1) Ontario Municipal Provincial Police Automated Cooperative Filing ~ystem (OMPAC) ThIS was a computerIzed filIng system that was used by the dIspatchers for filIng theIr reports, etc It was capable of takmg and clear10g occurrence reports. The dIspatch system was separate from the OM PAC system. (2) Telephone Lines All telephone calls from the publIc to any of the OPP detachments in the area covered by the dIspatch centre were routed to its dIspatchers. The Board was advIsed that most of the tIme of the dIspatchers was taken up In respondmg to calls from prIvate citizens. It was not uncommon, we were adVIsed, to receIve up to 20 phone calls from dIfferent cellular phones to report the same j accident. If the calls were of a non-emergent nature, the dispatcher would explam to the caller the vanous optIons avaIlable to hIm or her These optIOns mIght include adVISing the caller to pursue a CIvIl remedy or contact a bylaw enforcement officer We were adVIsed that In June, 1995, there were 4,200 occurrences reported to the dIspatchers by telephone There would have been another 4,200 phone calls to dIspatchers 10 that month requesting 1OformatIOn or 10 whIch the caller was adVIsed to pursue another option. Of the 4,200 occurrences that were phoned In about. 70% were non-reportable, III the sense that they were so mmor that the officer who was sent to the scene was not required to wnte out a report on them. All telephone calls were recorded on tape and the tape was reta10ed for fifty days. ------- . ( ( ~ 'i 43 i I (3) 911 Service. j I I I I At the tIme of the view, the dIspatchers in the dispatch centre handled all 911 calls for Lmdsay I and Peterborough. We were advised that in the near future, the dispatchers would be handhng 911 calls for the entire area covered by'the centre. (4) Radiocommunication Facilities. The consoles had extenSIve radIOcommunication facIlItIes, mc1udmg vIsual dIsplays, to enable I the dIspatchers to be 10 instantaneous contact not only wIth the OPP crUIsers '"- or UnIts, as they were called -- 10 theu mdIvIdual areas but also fire statIOns and ambulances. We were adVIsed that when a motor vehicle accIdent was reported, the dIspatcher responsible for the area 10 WhICh it occurred not only dIspatched OPP units to the scene but also fire trucks and ambulances, if necessary ThIS reqUIred the dIspatchers to be very famIlIar WIth their areas in order to dIspatch the nearest possible ambulance or fire truck. I I We were told that often, thIS duty involved consIderable stress and responsibIlIty We were gIven the example of a tram wreck 10 Bnghton. The dispatcher had to handle the mcommg calls and perform a number of dutIes all at once, whIle makmg sure that he or she got it nght. The calls to the dIspatcher would not only come from pnvate citIzens reportmg the wreck but also from the officer on the scene, perhapscallmg for backup or speCialIzed aSSIstance A good call taker, It ~' ( ( 44 was saId, could have two hnes on hold whIle dealmg with a third. When an opp officer was senously endangered, he or she would push the emergency button m the crUIser All consoles in the commUnICatIOns centre would ImmedIately hgpt up wIth a red lIght bearing the number of the cruiser from whIch the emergency SIgnal was sent. The other dIspatchers would then look to see If the dIspatcher who had that car was able. to deal wIth it. If not, one or other of them would back the dIspatcher up. We also were told that in senous matters such as murder mvestigations, the dIspatchers trIed to place a number of personnel on a common channel. These would include mvestIgatmg officers, identIficatIOn personnel and others. Because these mvestIgatIOns mvolved a lot gomg on at once, the communIcations centre tned to delegate to one dIspatcher the sole responslbIhty ofhandlmg these commUnICatIOns. (5) ePIC Monitor' The dIspatch centre also had a CPIC moOltor for purposes of determmmg whe~her a person under mvestigation had a CrIminal record or outstandmg warrant for hIS or her arrest. We were advised that the dIspatch centre was a test area for testmg a central CPIC - - -- ;I ( (" (' .- ( 45 Dispatch Room, Queen's Park: The mam feature of thIS room was a large console wIth the followmg mstruments and eqUipment (1) (:PIC Monitor" ThIS mOnItor was used by dIspatchers to check for mdivIduals with, e.g , a crImmal record, a hIstory of vIOlence or in checks for stolen cars. The records were kept on the CPIC system according to a code called the VEMSAC code. The inItials in this code repre~ented, in order, VIOlent, escaped, mentally unstable, sUIcIdal, armed, and contagious. Accordmg to informatIOn glVen to the Board in the course of the view, dIspatchers received an average of SIX hundred quenes per month requesting checks to be made on thIS mOnItor If m the course of a check, the CPIC system showed an outstanding warrant for arrest, the dIspatcher would dIrect that the person be held for the police and contact the relevant polIce department. All dIspatchers were sent to PolIce College to take a two week course on how to make queries on the ePIC system. (2) Threatening and Embarrassing (T & E) File: ThIS file was UnIque to Queen's Park. It was explamed that the Ontario Government Protectlve SerVIce Officers at Queen's Park needed to able to IdentIfy those who were de~led access to the bUIldmg housmg the legIslature. The IdentItIes of these persons were avaIlabk on computer -.-- .--.-- " ~ { .. .. 46 termInals at the entrances to the buildIng. If an officer were not near one of these termInals when he or she came upon a SUSpICIOUS person, they could radIO In to the dispatch room and have the dIspatcher determme from checkIng the T & E files on the monitor whether the mdIvIdual In question should be denied entry (3) Fire Alarms. The dIspatchers mOnItored the fire alarms for the main legIslatIve bUIldIng. One minute after an alarm sounded, It was their duty to announce an evacuatIOn from the area m whIch the alarm was located. A full evacuatIOn would be announced If any of the alarms in the attICS of the bUIldmg sounded. The dIspatchers would then call the fire department. ThIS reqUIred 'them to have a detaIled knowledge of the layout of the bUIldmg because they were responsible for advlSlng the fire department of the appropnate entrances to use. (4) Alarms for the Computer Rooms and Broadcast Centre: These alarms were for the more senSItIve areas of the bUIldmg, such as the computer rooms for the vanous polItIcal parties and the broadcast centre If an alarm sounded for one of these areas, the dIspatchers were required to know who to contact depending upon the nature of the alarm. For example, an alarm mIght sound for any of the follOWIng reasons water damage, mtrusIOn, temperature, or fire The Board was adVIsed that the practIce of the dIspatchers was to send two OGPS officers to check out the alarm. The officers, however, were not allowed access to the ~ \ \ ., ~ '" . 47 rooms unless they saw something unusual, such as a flashhght, an unconscIOUS person or flames (5) Radiotelephone Panel. , The radIOtelephone panel permitted the dIspatchers to be m contact WIth all OOPS officers at all times. It was explamed that the dIspatchers had to know where everyone was at any particular moment. For this reason, every OOPS officer was eqUIpped with a radIOtelep40ne. This enabled them to be dIspatched to theIr regular posts and to emergencIes. Also, If a code red or code blue was called dunng an emergency, such as a large demonstration gettmg out of,hand, the dIspatchers used the radIOtelephones to relay to the staff at the entrances whIch doors were to be locked, etc. (6) Video Monitors The console also contamed three sets of VIdeo momtors that were connected to 34 TV cameras mounted throughout the bUlldmg and surroundmgs. The mom tors contmuously dIsplayed the output from the cameras. It was the duty of the dIspatchers to scan the momtors to determme If anythmg unusual was happemng m or around the main legIslatIve bUIldIng If they saw somethmg unusual, such as a large crowd beginnIng to gather or a SUSpICIOUS persoJ'l m a hallway, they would adVIse the opp Sergeant who was on duty at the tlIn,~ or radIO the appropnate OOPS officers that there was a person for observatIOn In a partIcular area. i ( . ., ;; 48 The video moOltor at the rear door of the buildmg was also scanned fordelIvenes The door was locked. To have It opened, it was necessary for the couner to phone in to the dIspatch office on a i I telephone located at the door The dispatcher would then communicate with the couner and examme the delIvery by TV If all was well, the dIspatcher would then buzz open the door (7) VCR's The console had three VCR's for purposes of recordmg the dIsplays from the three sets of mom tors described above These VCR's were also activated by motion detectors located throughout the bmldmg. If an intruder were to actIvate a motion detector, hIS !presence would be momtored by the closest TV camera and Its output recorded on Its VCR. The dIspatcher, who had I the abilIty to direct the camera, would advise the OGPS of the mtrusIOn and then decIde what to record. (8) Telephone Lines The legislatIve bmldmg had 24 emergency telephones. Once an emergency telephone was picked up, it rang dIrectly mto the dIspatch office. The dIspatch office also had a number of outside lines \ running mto it. These all had "call dIsplay" to enable bomb threats and other threatemng calls to be traced. All conversatiOns on these telephones were recorded on tape, WhICh ran contmuously 24 hours per day The tapes were changed daily and retamed for one month. Then they were erased. Of course, if a tape contamed a recorded bomb threat or complamt, It was retained for as ~-~-~--~---- ------ - - -- I ~\ ( ( .' '!' 49 long as necessary (9) Duress Alarm Panel. The duress alarm panel was connected to over 100 duress alarm buttons located 10 various offices and other parts of the bUlldmg. Once a button was pushed, a SIlent alarm would hght up a partIcular area of this panel, enablmg the dIspatcher to know the locatIOn of the emergency The . dIspatcher would then send two OGPS officers to the 10catlOn. Everyone else would stop transmIttmg whIle they were en route Then, the dIspatcher would call the location and ask If there was a problem. It was mdIcated that the dispatchers could have several days WIthout any duress alarms and then have two or three 10 a smgle day V Consideration of the Issues Raised by the Parties. At the conclUSIOn of the eVIdence, both parties made extenSIve submIsSIOns upon the Issue of "dIscnmmatory effect" dIscnmmation under article A of the collectIve agreel11ent.In addItlOn, counsel addressed some remarks to the issue of negatIve work envlfonment, although that issue was not raIsed m the grievances but was raised for the first tIme in the open1Og statement of counsel for the umon. We WIn address these Issues as follows (1) "Discriminatory Effect" Under Article A of the Collective Agreement. ~ \ ( ." '€ .. " 50 Article A of the collective agreement reads, 10 pert10ent part, as follows - A.l I There shall be no dlscrimmatIOn practIced by reason of handIcap, as defined 10 section 10 (10) of the OntarIO Human RIghts Code (OHRC) As we noted 10 our mtenm award,"[ t]hIS IS a broad prohibItion of dIscnm1OatIOn WhICh , 1Ocorporates by reference the prohibIted categones of the Ontario Human RIghts Code, includmg discrIm1OatIOn by reason of handicap ThIS reflects a determ1OatIOn by the partIes to provIde a remedy by way of gnevance arbItratIOn to supplant the often cumbersome arid tIme-consummg process perceIved to be accorded compla1Ots to the OntarIO Human Rights CommIssIon." Id. at 7 We also noted m our 10terIm award that "counsel for the umon stated that Ifwe proceeded to a hearIng upon the merIts, the umon's positIOn would be that the dutIes and responsibilIties of the gnevors were valued at a lower level than those of other dIspatchers 10 the Ontano Provmclal PolIce because of a perceptIOn related to theIr dIsabIhtles. It was assumed, counsel submItted, that the gnevors could not do as much as other dIspatchers because they were qIsabled." Id. at 3 At the conclusIOn of the eVIdence upon the ments, however counsel for the limon made a much broader submIssIOn. She essentially submItted that It would be establIshed that the gnevors were the VIctIms of "adverse effects" dIscnmmatIOn based upon handIcap once It was shown that they were , (I) Employed as part of an "affirmatIve actIOn/special program" for the ~ '> ( ( ~ ,a ... 51 handicapped, (2) Fit into the CO 2 classification like all of the other dispatchers m the OPP; and, (3) Were the only dispatchers in the OPP to get mstead the lower classificatIOn of CO 1 Once these condItIOns were satisfied, it was submitted, It would be unnecessary for the UnIon to go farther and actually show that the gnevors receIved the lower classIficatIOn of CO 1 because of a perception related to theIr disabilIties. We dIsagree, for two reasons. FIrst, to accept thIS submiSSIOn would brmg the Board dangerously clo'se to turnmg thIS proceedmg into a full-scale claSSification case Secondly, we do not interpret ArtIcle A of the collective agreement or existing Human Rights Junsprudence as dIsposmg ofth~ necessity to demonstrate a causal connection between the disability and the alleged dlscnmmatory effect. The alleged dIscnmmatory effect must be "by reason of' the disabilIty At the outset of the heanng upon the ments, there seemed to be little doubt that condItIOns (1) and (3), above, were already met. There was no dispute that the dIspatchers at Queen's Park were employed as part of an "affirmative actIOn/speCIal program" for the handIcapped. There also seemed to be no dIspute that they were the only dispatchers in the OPP to be classified at the CO 1 level. ThIS would leave m dispute only the second condItIOn, above, whether the dispatchers at Queen's Park fit mto the CO 2 claSSificatIOn like all of the other dispatchers 10 the OPP That IS the classIc Issue m a classIficatIOn case ~ ( ( . ;~ . ;, 52 In our mtenm award, we decided that we would proceed to hear thIS case upon the ments because It did not appear m substance to be -- as counsel for the employer contended -- a classIfication case. If It had been a classIficatIOn case, It would have been barred by the Local AppendIx to the Sectoral Framework Agreement between the partIes dated August I, 1993 In reaching thIS conclUSIOn, we relied in large part upon the representatIOns of the then counsel for the union regardmg what the union's posItion would be If the matter were to proceed to a heanng upon the ments. See our intenm award at 8 We did not mtend to turn the hearmg upon the merits \ mto what would be, for all mtents and purposes, a classification case. Rather, we mtended to address substantIve issues of discriminatIOn under artIcle A of the collectIve agreement. As applIed to the facts of the present case, article A of the collective agreement forbIds dIscrimmatIOn practiced "by reason of' handIcap We agree, as counsel for the umon stressed III her submIssIons, that under existing Human RIghts Junsprudence, the element of dIscrImmation may be satIsfied by a showmg of "dISCrImmatory effect" See O'Malley v Simpson-Sears (1986), 7 C H. R. R. D/3102, at 3105 (SCC) It IS not necessary to show that the dIscnmmatIOn was duect or intentIOnal But this does not do away WIth the reqUirement that the dIscnmmatIOn must be "by reason of' the handIcap There may have been many reasons why the dIspatchers at Queen's Park suffered the alleged "dIscnmmatory effect" ofbemg the only OPP dIspatchers classIfied at the CO I level. They may have been classIfied at thIS level because they pnmanly dIspatched OPGS secunty officers on foot rather than OPP polIce officers m crUIsers. Or perhaps because theIr Jobs were regarded as ------------ ------- - ~. ( ( ; /i 53 not requmng the same level of mitiatIve as OPP dIspatchers 10 the field. Or perhaps because they were not required to respond to as many emergencIes. Or handle and pnontIze as many calls at once. None of these reasons might have been valId. ConsIderabie eVIdence tends to pomt in that dIrectIOn. In a claSSIficatIOn case, the gnevors mIght well have succeeded in showmg that they I deserved the CO 2 classificatIOn because they had to perform at the same level of skIll and responsibIlIty as dIspatchers 10 the field. They would not have succeeded 10 showing, however, that theIr ongmal mIsclassIficatIOn was "by reason of' theIr being part of a handIcapped group ! It was suggested that we could lOfer from the CIrcumstances that the gnevors were classIfied at one level lower than all other dIspatchers "by reason of' their membership ina handIcapped group We were referred to the "systemic" approach to dIscrimination that was at the foundatIon of pay eqUIty legIslatIOn. ThIS approach "acknowledges that by and large the systems and practIces we customarily and often admIttedly adopt may have an unjustified negative effect on certam groups in society The effect of the system on the mdIvIdual or group, rather than Its attItudmal sources, governs whether or not a remedy IS Justified." R. Abella, Report of the Royal Commission on Equality in Employment, as quoted by the Pay EqUIty Tribunal m Re Haldemand-Norfolk (No 3), at 31 ThIS was an mterestmg mVItatIOn, but one that we must respectfully decline It seems to us that we would be trenchmg upon the junsdlctIon of the parties and possibly the legIslature If we were to conclude usmg a "systemIC" approach that proof of a causal connectIon between the alleged discnmmatory effect and the handIcap need not be shown 'before awardmg the gnevors a remedy ----- -- - ----------- i- ( ( "' ,1'.' ::~' '. 54 ArtIcle A of the collectIve agreement is qUite clear It expressly reqUires that to warrant a remedy, the dIscnminatIon must be "by reason of', inter alia, handicap In the present case, there was msufficient eVIdence to convmce the Board that' the gnevors were classIfied at the CO I level by reason of their membershIp m a handicapped group According to the eVIdence, the only person m the Queen's Park detachment to have any mput mto the claSSIficatIOn process was Staff Sergeant Skeldmg It IS true that Ms. Courte gave eVIdence that she perceIved hIm to have a negative attItude toward the handicapped dIspatchers in the radIO room. She said that durmg her dIscussIOns WIth Staff Sergeant Skeldmg about:the reclassificatIOn ofthe dispatchers, he referred to them as "you people" and also expressed the opmIOn that the dIspatchers were not capable of some of the more technIcal aspects of the Job, such as addmg mformatIOn to CPIC Ms. Courte also testified that when she complamed to Staff Sergeant Skeldmg about the artICle in the Sentmel, he reacted negatIvely and gave her the ImpressIon that she should be grateful to have a Job When Staff Sergeant Skeldmg testified, however, he flatly contradIcted Ms. Courte's perceptIon of hIm. He demed referrmg to the dIspatchers as "you people" m a way that would dIstmguish them from others on the baSIS of theIr handIcapped status. He also demed ever saymg m hIS reclaSSIficatIOn dISCUSSIons with Ms. Courte that the dIspatchers were incompetent to perform some of the technIcal aspects of the Job He pomted out that the Job descnptIOns that went to Human Resources for claSSIficatIOn mcluded them. There was no dIspute between hIm and Ms. Courte, he Said, regardmg what was to appear m the Job descnptIOns. The first tIme that a dIspute :... ( ( .~ (i ~ 55 arose, he saId, was after the Jobs were classIfied. As to hIS discussIOn wIth Ms. Courte regardmg the artIcle that appeared m the Sentmel, Staff Sergeant Skeldmg gave an entIrely dIfferent verSIOn of events. He said that after she complamed to hIm and he read the article, he was offended by It and attempted to mduc~ Inspector Arbour to Issue an apology When Inspector Arbour resIsted, he saId, he made hIS own apology to Ms. Courte and the dIspatchers m the radIO room. In any event, there seems to be considerable doubt as to the Impact, If any, that Staff Sergeant Skelding could have had upon the reclassIfication process beyond draftmg the Job descriptions m consultatIOn WIth Ms Courte and forwarding them to Human Resources. The eVIdence mdlCates that the CO 1 classificatIOn was assIgned to the dIspatcher Job by evaluator t Landry Mr Landry was not called to testify The reasons for classificatIOn that he set forth on the Job descriptIOn for the dIspatchers were, to say the least, too cryptic to be helpful in thIS proceedmg. Even Ms. Lee had a dIfficult tIme comprehendmg them when asked in her eVIdence whether she agreed WIth them. It can readIly be seen, then, that the above evidence constitutes an msufficIent eVIdentiary baSIS to support the conclUSIOn urged by the umon, that the gnevors were classIfied at the CO I level by reason of theIr membership m a handIcapped group. Accordingly, we must conclude that m the CIrcumstances of the present case, artIcle A of the collectIve agreement was not shown to have been breached by the employer -- --- j ~ "i- t. ( ... i! G 56 (2) Negative Work Environment: Because the Issue of the eXIstence of a negatIve work environment for the hapdlCapped dIspatchers 10 the radio room at Queen's Park was not raIsed in the gnevances leadmg to this arbitration, we would stray beyond our JunsdictIOn if we were to deal wIth It' We would be - remiss, however, if we dId not highlIght the claims ofnegatlve work enVironment as a matter for concern. Both Ms. Courte and Ms. Lee testIfied that they perceived that the handIcapped dIspatchers m the Queen's Park detachment were not treated wIth respect, particularly by the OGPS officers in the detachment. Ms. Courte Said that she was on the recelvmg end of "put-downs;' from these officers, such as bemg called "gImp" or "hmpy" Ms. Lee testIfied that she had heard sImilar I "put-downs" bemg dIrected toward other dIspatchers. She also perceIved one OGPS officer to be tellmg her m so many words that Mr MacGregor, one of the few able-bodIed dispatchers to work. at Queen's Park, was the only dIspatcher worthy of the title Both Ms. Courte and Ms. Lee testIfied that the OGPS officers commonly referred to the radiO room as "the cage" or "the hole" We recognize that because the Issue ofnegatlVe work enVlfonment was regarded as beyond our JunsdIctIOn m thIS proceedmg, no eVIdence was called by the employer to counter these claIms. However, if the claims of Ms. Courte and Ms. Lee were establIshed as fact after a full heanng, ... ( ( '. ,s " ~ 57 they mIght well estabhsh the baSIS for a Human RIghts remedy For the moment, all that we can do IS highlight these claims as a matter for concern. We trust that they WIll be approprIately , addressed by the employer VI. Conclusion. For all of the above reasons, the grievances herem are dIsmIssed. I Dated at Toronto, OntarIO, thIS 5th day of Novembe r ,1996 ~ I . ,~/I ~ ~ R. lacl Rbberts, V Ice Chair i, ( \, Browes-Bugden. '0 Member C} ) '-,~c/ ~ -- -- - -- -- - - -- -