HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-1070.Singh.05-07-06 Decision
Crown Employees Commission de ~~
Grievance Settlement reglement des griefs
Board des employes de la
Couronne
~-,...
Suite 600 Bureau 600 Ontario
180 Dundas Sl. West 180 rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396 Telec. (416) 326-1396
GSB 2001-1070
UNION#2001-0517-0181 2001-0517-0182,2001-0517-0183 2001-0517-0184 2001-0517-0185
2001-0517-0186 2001-0517-0187 2001-0517-0188
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(SIngh) Union
- and -
The Crown In RIght of Ontano
(Mimstry ofCommumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer
BEFORE RandI Abramsky Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Nelson Roland
BarrIster and SOlICItor
FOR THE EMPLOYER Sean Kearney
Counsel
Management Board Secretanat
HEARING June 27 2005
2
DeCISIon
The Employer has moved to dIsmIss the gnevances In thIS matter due the InSUffiCIency of
the partIculars filed. The Umon opposes that motIOn, and contends that the partIculars are In
fact, sufficIent.
Facts
The gnevor Mr BalbIndar SIngh, filed mne gnevances - eIght on September 20 2001
and one on May 30 2002 These gnevances, as a group were ongInally set for heanng on
January 21 2004
On December 5 2003 counsel for the Employer Ms LIsa Compagnone wrote to the Umon,
requestIng "all matenal facts and documents the umon Intends to rely upon to support ItS case" In
"order to prepare the employer's defense" The InfOrmatIOn was sought by January 12, 2004
No partIculars or documents were provIded.
The heanng date of January 21 2004 was used as a medIatIOn date wIthout success,
although some InformatIOn was exchanged. Subsequently the heanng was rescheduled for
October 4 and October 5 2004
On June 23 2004 counsel for the Employer Mr Sean Kearney wrote to counsel for the
Umon, Mr Nelson Roland, agaIn requestIng the provIsIOn of partIculars In advance of the
heanng scheduled for October 4 and 5 The letter went through each gnevance, In detaIl, and
requested specIfic InformatIOn - essentIally the who what, when, and where of the allegatIOns
The letter also provIded a number of documents that the employer had uncovered whIch, It
belIeved, related to the gnevances, for the Umon's reVIew
3
AgaIn, no partIculars or documents were provIded before the heanng on October 4 2004
Also the gnevor dId not attend the heanng. Instead, Mr Kearney Mr Roland and I met on
October 4 2004 to dISCUSS the lack of partIculars The result was an Order dated October 6
2004 That Order provIdes as follows
ORDER
1 The heanng In thIS matter was to contInue on October 4 2004 and October 5
2004 Due to the unavaIlabIlIty of the gnevor and the faIlure of the gnevor to
provIde full partIculars, the heanng could not proceed as scheduled.
2 The heanng wIll now contInue on June 27 and June 28 2005 as well as
September 14 and September 15 2005 At that tIme, the gnevor and the Umon
wIll be expected to proceed wIth theIr eVIdence
3 Pnor to that tIme specIfically on or before Apnl 29 2005 the gnevor and the
Umon must provIde counsel for the Employer Mr Kearney wIth the partIculars
and documents set out In Mr Kearney's letter of June 23 2004
4 If complIance wIth the Order IS not forthcomIng by Apnl 29 2005 the Board wIll
consIder a motIOn by the Employer to dIsmIss these gnevances
On Apnl 29 2004 Mr Roland sent a letter to Mr Kearney outlImng the gnevor's
partIculars
Positions of the Parties
The Employer contends that the partIculars provIded on Apnl 29 2005 are wholly
Inadequate and demonstrates a blatant dIsregard of the Board's Order As a result, It submIts,
thIS case IS no further along than It was In late 2003 and the gnevances should be dIsmIssed.
The Employer asserts that the gnevances, on theIr face, say very lIttle and reqUIre full
partIculars to enable the Employer to defend ItS actIOns and ensure an efficIent heanng. It
contends that the InfOrmatIOn provIded adds very lIttle to the InformatIOn the Employer
4
Itself, provIded to the Umon. It submIts that, In regard to qUIte a number of the gnevances, It
stIll does not have any dates, locatIOns, the names of the persons Involved, or even the basIs
of the gnevor's claims It submIts that, as a result, It cannot respond, nor even know If It has
the nght to make prelImInary motIOns In regard to the tImelIness of some of the gnevances
It argues that the partIculars fall to meet the gnevor's oblIgatIOns under the collectIve
agreement, and fall to comply wIth the Board's order of October 6 2004 It asserts that much
of the InformatIOn requested In ItS June 23 2004 letter was not provIded, even though the
order reqUIred the gnevor "to provIde the partIculars and documents set out In Mr Kearney's
letter of June 23 2004" In ItS VIew the gnevor' s actIOns constItute an abuse of process
The Employer contends that the Board has JunsdIctIOn to dIsmIss the gnevances because
of the gnevor's faIlure to provIde partIculars and hIS dIsregard of the Board's pnor Order In
support, It cItes to OPSEU (KlonoYf,ski et al) and MinistlY of Finance (2002) GSB No
1799/99 (Fisher) OPSEU (Giannou) and Management Board Secretariat (1997) GSB No
570/96 (LeIghton) Gardiner and MinistlY of Community Safety and Correctional Services
(2004), PSGB No P-2003-0951 (Carter) OPSEU (Ross) and Ministry of Solicitor General
and Correctional Services (2003), GSB No 2690/96 (HerlIch) and OPSEU (Union
Grievance) and Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (2004), GSB No
2002-2260 (Mikus) In ItS submIssIOn, the gnevor's actIOns are an abuse of process, whIch
reqUIre dIsmIssal of the gnevances, CItIng Re Budget Car Rentals Toronto Ltd and UF C W
Local 175 (Botan) (2000) 87 L.AC (4th) 154 (DavIe) Re Credit Valley Hospital v
C UP.E. Local 3252 (Kumar Grievance) [2000] O.L.AA No 782 (DavIe)
5
The Umon asserts that the partIculars provIded are sufficIent. It submIts that a number of
the gnevances, on theIr face, are self-explanatory and that It provIded the basIc InformatIOn
reqUIred for the Employer to know the case It has to meet. In some Instances, where no dates
were provIded, It submIts that the gnevor provIded the Employer wIth enough InfOrmatIOn
for It to be able to go back and check ItS own records for the dates In questIOn. AlternatIvely
It submIts that the tIme penod IS around the tIme of the gnevances because no tImelIness
obJectIOn was raised dunng the gnevance procedure In regard to the gnevance concermng a
repnmand, It submIts that the Umon confirmed the specIfic repnmand In questIOn. To
reqUIre more, the Umon asserts, changes the onus, SInce It IS the Employer who has the onus
to JustIfy ItS decIsIOn to dIscIplIne the gnevor In the Umon's VIew all of the cases cIted by
the Employer are dIstIngUIshable on theIr facts In thIS case, the Umon contends, the gnevor
has attended at the heanng and provIded the reqUIred InfOrmatIOn. AccordIngly It contends
that the gnevances should not be dIsmIssed.
Decision
The collectIve agreement, In ArtIcle 22 14 4 recogmzes the Importance of "full
dIsclosure of the Issues In dIspute as alleged by a gnevance advanced by the Umon " There
IS a correspondIng oblIgatIOn on the Employer to provIde "full dIsclosure of the facts relIed
upon by management In a decIsIOn that IS subJect to a gnevance " As stated by Vice-Chair
Maeots In Chyczij and Ministry of Labour PSGB No P-0017-00(2001) cIted In OPSEU
(Union Grievance) supra at p 3
Each sIde s entItled to know the case that It IS reqUIred to meet. When a party IS
faced wIth allegatIOns, It should expect to receIve an answer to the questIOns
"when" "where" "how" and "who" from the party makIng the ImtIal allegatIOns
6
In Gardiner and Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, supra at p 3
Chair Carter dIsmIssed a competItIOn gnevance when the gnevor faIled to provIde partIculars
about hIS claim He stated that " the Board must be provIded wIth some detaIls as to whom the
gnevor alleges to be responsIble for the flawed competItIOn, what actIOns occurred and how
these actIOns caused the competItIOn to be flawed, and where and when these actIOns occurred."
Although he was sympathetIc to the fact that the gnevor was unrepresented by counsel, he stated
at p 4 "Nevertheless, all gnevors, regardless of whether they retaIn legal counsel, are expected
to take responsIbIlIty for the carnage of theIr gnevance by provIdIng the basIc partIculars
underlYIng the gnevance "
The GSB Junsprudence IS clear that the faIlure to provIde partIculars, partIcularly after an
Order of the Board requmng them, may lead to dIsmIssal of the gnevance OPSEU (KlonoYf,ski)
supra, OPSEU (Giannou) supra, OPSEU (Ross) supra. In my VIew however dIsmIssal of a
gnevance for faIlIng to provIde sufficIent partIculars IS an extraordInary remedy I agree wIth
ArbItrator DavIe In Re Budget Car Rentals Toronto Ltd supra at p 4 (Qmcklaw) where she
states that "an arbItrator should not lIghtly dIsmIss a gnevance by reason of any 'abuse of
process' and outnght dIsmIssal of a gnevance by reason of an alleged abuse of process should
only occur In the clearest of cases" DependIng on the facts, however dIsmIssal of a gnevance
may be an appropnate remedy
In thIS case, there was a substantIal penod of non-cooperatIOn regardIng the provIsIOn of
partIculars, whIch led to a Board order That order set a date for the gnevor to provIde
partIculars and whIch gave the gnevor over SIX months to comply
7
It warned that non-complIance would lead the Board to consIder a motIOn to dIsmIss The goal
of the order was to ensure that the partIculars were provIded so that the heanng could actually
start on June 27 2005 - a year and a half after the ongInal heanng date It IS In lIght of thIS
hIStOry that the partIculars provIded must be assessed.
In thIS case, there IS no dIspute about the basIc oblIgatIOn to provIde partIculars What IS at
Issue IS the sufficIency of the partIculars provIded. After carefully consIdenng the gnevances,
the Employer's letter of June 23 2004 the partIculars provIded on Apnl 29 2005 and the
submIssIOns of counsel, It IS my VIew that SIX of the gnevances should be dIsmIssed and three
should proceed. Each gnevance wIll be consIdered IndIVIdually
1 Mav 30, 2002 gnevance - OPSEU No. 02 C 720
ThIS gnevance alleges as follows
I gneve the management has vIOlated but not lImIted to Art.3 of the collectIve
agreement, the Ontano Human Rights Code, Statement of EthIcal PnncIpals,
CanadIan Charter of Rights and Freedom by InflICtIng dIfferentIal treatment by
assIgmng non-SIkh officers wIth sImIlar facIal hair to areas that reqUIre breathIng
apparatus
In ItS June 23 2004 letter the Employer stated "Please provIde partIculars as to the
names of the IndIVIduals assIgned, locatIOn of the assIgnments, who assIgned them and the
explanatIOns provIded for the alleged assIgnments" It noted that a number of IndIVIduals were
specIfically named at the January 2004 medIatIOn. The letter lIsted them, and stated "Please
provIde partIculars for these names settIng out where they worked whIle bearded and when."
FInally the letter noted that, In January the gnevor had maIntaIned that there was MSA
8
eqUIpment avaIlable that permIts bearded IndIVIduals to maIntaIn a seal, and to "provIde detaIls
regardIng same"
The Umon' s Apnl 29 2005 letter provIded as follows
The "Statement of Gnevance" IS self-explanatory Examples of other CO' s wIth
sImIlar facIal hair who have been (and contInue to be) assIgned to areas
potentIally requmng breathIng apparatus are [five names lIsted]
In my VIew the partIculars provIded are Inadequate No dates are provIded. No specIfic
assIgnments or areas are lIsted. The supervIsors who made the assIgnments are not provIded. The
Umon argued that the Employer knows the areas, and that the gnevor would testIfy as to where
he was assIgned and where he observed these other officers assIgned.
The Umon' s argument mIsperceIves the oblIgatIOn to provIde partIculars It IS not for the
Employer to guess the specIfics of the alleged dIfferentIal treatment, or to try to figure It out.
Nor IS It reqUIred to Wait untIl the gnevor's eVIdence on examInatIOn-In-chIef to learn the basIs
of the gnevor's claim of dIfferentIal treatment.
The partIculars provIded here are qUIte sImIlar to those provIded In OPSEU (KlonoYf,ski)
supra In that case there was an allegatIOn that the Mimstry applIed ItS travel polIcy In a
dISCnmInatory and arbItrary fashIOn. The Board Issued an Intenm order requmng the Umon "to
provIde sufficIent partIculars of the dISCnmInatory treatment alleged." The Umon was reqUIred
to name the IndIVIduals who benefited and those who dId not from the Employer's applIcatIOn of
the polIcy the dates of each occurrence upon whIch they alleged the polIcy was broken, and the
partIculars regardIng whIch rules and how the rules were broken In each case
The Umon provIded partIculars, but the Board found that they faIled to comply wIth ItS
earlIer order Names were provIded but not dates The Board stated as follows about that at p 2
9
Paragraph 2 of the order reqUIred the Umon to provIde the dates of each alleged
occurrence No such dates were gIven. The purpose of my order was so that the
Mimstry would be able to respond to specIfic allegatIOns and from whIch an
eXamInatIOn of the tIme and travel records would probably easIly reveal whether
or not the polIcy was beIng applIed In a dISCnmInatory fashIOn. By only gIVIng
the names and not dates, the Mimstry would have to do extensIve research In
order to respond to these vague partIculars That IS exactly the work the Umon
should have done to be In complIance wIth my December 19th order
The same IS true here By provIdIng names but not dates or assIgnments, It would reqUIre
the Mimstry to do extensIve research to determIne, for a unspecIfied penod of tIme the
assIgnments gIven to the named IndIVIduals compared to the assIgnments of the gnevor ThIS IS
the work that the gnevor and the Umon should have done In response to the October 6 2004
Order
Further If the gnevor could relate hIS observatIOns about the assIgnment of these
IndIVIduals dunng the heanng, he could provIde them In the partIculars ArtIcle 22 14 5 reqUIres
full dIsclosure "at the earlIest stage of the gnevance procedure" The Employer need not Wait
untIl the heanng. To allow that would completely undermIne the process for pre-heanng
dIsclosure agreed to by the partIes It would also undermIne the goal of an efficIent heanng. As
stated by Vice-Chair FIsher In OPSEU (KlonoYf,ski) supra at p 3 provIdIng sufficIent partIculars
"would have allowed the Mimstry to respond to each IncIdent In a clear and conCIse fashIOn. It
also would have made the heanng of thIS case proceed In an efficIent manner because everybody
would know before the heanng exactly what the case was about."
For these reasons, I conclude that the partIculars provIded In regard to the May 30 2002
gnevance are InSUfficIent to enable the Employer to respond and fall to comply wIth my order of
October 6 2004 The gnevor had more than ample tIme to provIde the reqUIred partIculars
Under the cIrcumstances, I conclude that the gnevance should be dIsmIssed.
10
2 September 20,2001 - OPSEU No. 01 C 701
The gnevance alleges as follows
I gneve that management vIOlated the collectIve agreement but not lImIted to It
for the letter of repnmand and Its contents from Mr Rutherford.
In the June 23 2004 letter counsel for the Employer states that "I presume thIS IS In
reference to Mr Rutherford's letter of Apnl 27 2001 and the gnevor's clear InsubordInatIOn In
faIlIng to provIde an occurrence report despIte beIng Instructed to do so" It then states "Could
you please provIde detaIled partIculars as to the alleged vIOlatIOn(s) IncludIng specIfics as to acts
and/or admIssIOns commItted by Mr Rutherford and the date and place of same" Counsel then
attached a copy of the letter for the Umon's reference, as well as an occurrence report dated
January 8 2001 by Mr Richard.
The Umon's Apnl29 2005 response states, In relevant part, as follows
ThIS gnevance IS agaInst a letter of repnmand. The letter of repnmand IS dated
Fnday Apnl 27 2001 and IS sIgned by J Rutherford, Deputy Supenntendent,
Male OperatIOns (A)
It IS my VIew that there are sufficIent partIculars for thIS gnevance to proceed. The
gnevance contests a "letter of repnmand" whIch has been IdentIfied as the letter of Apnl 27
2001 The Employer knows the facts underlYIng that letter of repnmand. Although the Umon
dId not address the request In the June 23 2004 letter regardIng "specIfics as to the acts and/or
admIssIOns commItted by Mr Rutherford and the date and place of same" the Employer has
enough InfOrmatIOn to proceed.
3 September 20,2001 - OPSEU No. 01 C 702
The gnevance alleges as follows
I gneve that management vIOlated the collectIve agreement but not lImIted to It
for Improper pay for overtIme whIle on hospItal duty
11
The Employer's letter of June 23 2004 asks the Umon to "please provIde detaIled
partIculars statIng the specIfic vIOlatIOns of the collectIve agreement commItted by the Employer
and the names of those IndIVIduals alleged to have commItted any of the above alleged
vIOlatIOns, and dates and places when such vIOlatIOns were allegedly commItted." It noted that
In January It was IndIcated that the gnevor may have been ultImately paid what he claimed In
the gnevance and asked the Umon to confirm thIS In addItIOn, In January It was alleged that the
gnevance stemmed from five other officers beIng paid overtIme whIle the gnevor was not. The
letter asked for "the names of these CO's and the locatIOns and tImes In whIch they were paid the
overtIme supposedly demed to the gnevor "
The Umon responded as follows
The Employer faIled to pay the gnevor overtIme pay when the gnevor was
assIgned to and carned out hospItal dutIes on behalf of the Employer The
manager on duty on the day In questIOn was named MacArthur CO's Melver
Edwards and another C 0 all of whom were assIgned to hospItal dutIes as well
as the gnevor on thee same day receIved overtIme whIle the gnevor dId not.
The Umon submIts that the Employer can check the roster and duty schedule to
determIne the date In Issue and that It would around the tIme of the gnevance because no
obJectIOn regardIng tImelIness was raised. It ItS VIew such an exerCIse would not be unduly
onerous for the Employer
In my VIew the partIculars provIded are Inadequate The date In an alleged overtIme
matter must be provIded. AgaIn, It IS not up to the Employer to guess, or comb ItS records to
determIne when these IndIVIduals were workIng, for an unspecIfied penod, and whether or not
they receIved overtIme when the gnevor dId not. I conclude that the Employer does not have
sufficIent InformatIOn to InVestIgate or defend thIS claim. The gnevor has had ample tIme to
provIde the reqUIred partIculars but has not. ThIS gnevance IS therefore dIsmIssed
12
4 September 20,2001 OPSEU No. 01 C 703
The gnevance alleges as follows
I gneve that management vIOlated but not lImIted to the collectIve agreement -
not provIdmg breaks whIle on hospItal dutIes
The June 23 2004 letter from the Employer seeks "partIculars as to when these breaks were
demed, where and by whom, as well as partIculars as to how treatment of the gnevor was
allegedly dIfferent from other CO's on hospItal duty "
The Umon responded as follows
The gnevor was not provIded wIth breaks whIle on hospItal dutIes contrary to the
CollectIve Agreement. The gnevor was assIgned to a '2 man post' requmng two
C 0 s to be on guard sImultaneously There was no C 0 avaIlable to spell of the
gnevor for hIS breaks hence the gnevor was unable to take a break. ThIS IS a
contmumg problem that the Employer has faIled to rectIfy to date and therefore
applIes to each an every mstance of the gnevor bemg assIgned to hospItal dutIes
as descnbed herem.
In my VIew these partIculars are madequate Agam, no dates are provIded. The
Employer IS left to reVIew ItS records to determme when the gnevor was assIgned to hospItal
work and If he was allowed breaks Further how thIS vIOlates the collectIve agreement IS not
provIded - does It vIOlate health and safety reqUIrements or does It mvolve dIsparate treatment or
both? Although requested, no facts suggestmg how the gnevor was treated dIfferently than other
C 0 s were provIded. Consequently the basIc facts - who what, where, when and how have not
been provIded m contraventIOn of the order of October 6 2004 The gnevor was gIven ample
tIme to provIde partIculars but dId not. ThIS gnevance IS dIsmIssed.
13
5 September 20,2001 - OPSEUNo. 01 C 704
The gnevance alleges as follows
I gneve that management vIOlated the collectIve agreement but not lImIted to It
regardIng overtIme on 28/05/01 and the 29/05/01 I was demed the overtIme even
though I was avaIlable on those days
The Employer's June 23 2004 letter states to "please provIde partIculars as to who demed the
overtIme and the basIs for the claim that overtIme should have been afforded to the gnevor"
Counsel attached a copy of the gnevor's overtIme sheet for May of 2001 whIch, he noted,
reflects three refusals of overtIme by the gnevor In late May of that year AccordIng to Employer
counsel, there IS a local overtIme agreement whIch precludes CorrectIOnal Officers from
overtIme opportumtIes If they have declIned three overtIme assIgnments In the month.
The Umon responded as follows
The "Statement of Gnevance" IS self-explanatory and the reader IS referred
thereto The gnevor volunteered for ShIftS, on the dates IndIcated and was
avaIlable for ShIftS due to the fact that he was on hIS days off One of the
Managers removed the gnevor's "overtIme shIft" avaIlabIlIty sheet on or about
24-05-01 thereby hIndenng or even preventIng the assIgnment of overtIme to the
gnevor on 28/05/01 and 29/05/01
I conclude that the partIculars are adequate to proceed. The gnevor alleges that he was
Improperly demed overtIme on May 28 and May 29 2001 He alleges that he was avaIlable on
those dates and that hIS overtIme sheet was pulled by a manager on or about May 24 2001 The
overtIme sheet supplIed by the Employer has a notatIOn "removed 24-05-01" wIth M. RIchards
sIgnature The Employer has suffiCIent InformatIOn avaIlable to InVestIgate the gnevor's
allegatIOn and to defend ItS actIOn
14
6 September 20,2001 OPSEU No. 01 C 705
The gnevance states as follows
I gneve that management vIOlated the collectIve agreement but not lImIted to that
- refusIng to take a gnevance when I requested to lay a gnevance wIth Mr
RIchard.
The Employer requested "full partIculars to the relevant date, locatIOn, and the specIfic facts
surroundIng thIS allegatIOn " The Umon responded that the gnevance IS "self-explanatory
Mr RIchard refused to log the gnevance despIte the gnevor InSIStIng that he was filIng a
gnevance"
I conclude that the partIculars are InSUfficIent. The Umon provIded no addItIOnal
InformatIOn to enable the Employer to IdentIfy when thIS occurred or the context In whIch It
arose The Employer IS left to guess what the subject matter was and when It took place The
gnevor had ample tIme to provIde the reqUIred partIculars but dId not. ThIS gnevance IS
dIsmIssed.
7 September 20,2001 OPSEU No. 01 C 706
The gnevance alleges
I gneve that management vIOlated but not lImIted to Health and safety portIOn of
the collectIve agreement and the Health and Safety Act for repnsal on the 19th of
August by Mr Tony Roth.
The Employer wrote on June 23 2004 that It had been advIsed In January that the gnevance
resulted from Mr Roth denYIng the gnevor the opportumty to go for lunch on August 19 2001
It contInued "PartIculars are stIll reqUIred as to the basIs for the repnsal allegatIOn, the facts
concernIng the alleged demal, and the sectIOns of the collectIve agreement and the Health and
Safety Act that were vIOlated."
15
The Umon responded as follows
The gnevance described In the "Statement of Gnevance" IS self-explanatory
Tony Roth refused to let the gnevor leave a Health & Safety meetIng so as to
enable the gnevor to have hIS lunch. Mr Roth ordered the gnevor to remaIn In
the Boardroom at the Employer's premIses Under fear of dIscIplIne, the greIvor
was forced by Mr Roth to forgo hIS lunch.
I conclude that these are sufficIent partIculars The date and type of meetIng (Health and
Safety) IS known, the manager Involved In known, and the alleged "repnsal" IS known -
essentIally he claims that he was forced to forego hIS lunch SInce he would have been
dIscIplIned had he left the meetIng. The gnevance cItes the Health and Safety provIsIOns of the
collectIve agreement. There IS sufficIent InformatIOn for the Employer to InVestIgate what
happened and defend ItS actIOns
7 September 20,2001 OPSEU No. 01 C 707
The gnevance alleges
I gneve that management vIOlated the collectIve agreement but not lImIted to It by
harassment by Mr RIchard on the 02/08/01
The Employer requested "detaIled partIculars as to the specIfic acts of harassment alleged
to have been made by Mr RIchard on that date, as well as specIfic locatIOns regardIng same In
addItIOn, please provIde partIculars as to the basIs for the allegatIOn that Mr RIchard's conduct
constI tuted harassment." To assIst, counsel provIded the Umon wIth a copy of occurrence
reports dated August 2,2001 by Mr RIchard and Mr VandenthIllart.
16
The Umon responded as follows "The 'statement of gnevance' IS self-explanatory "
In my VIew there were no partIculars provIded In regard to thIS gnevance There IS a
general claim of harassment by Mr RIchard on August 2, 2001 - but no specIfics What
harassment? When? Where? The Employer IS left to guess what thIS gnevance IS about. The
gnevor had ample tIme to provIde the reqUIred partIculars but faIled to do so The gnevance IS
dIsmIssed.
9 September 20,2001 OPSEU No. 01 C 708
The gnevance alleges
I gneve that management vIOlated the collectIve agreement but not lImIted to It-
for beIng demed proper computer traInIng (OTIS OMS etc) ThIS In turn demed
overtIme that was offered to other CorrectIOnal Officers who had pnor traInIng.
The Employer requested partIculars, "IncludIng the names of those who breached any
employer oblIgatIOns In thIS regard. Please also advIse as to the sectIOns of the collectIve
agreement on whIch the gnevor relIes In thIS gnevance, and the detnment allegedly sustaIned by
the gnevor" IncludIng the posts that the gnevor alleges that he could work In If provIded wIth
OTIS or related computer traInIng. The Issue It submIts, IS Important because of the gnevor's
InabIlIty to wear a MSA.
In response, the Umon wrote as follows
The "statement of gnevance" IS self-explanatory The gnevor on many occaSIOns
requested the traInIng referenced In the gnevance The traInIng was needed for A
& D Records, and Front Desk areas to whIch the gnevor IS and has been assIgned
frequently The traInIng requested has, to date, not been gIven. The gnevor asked
vanous members of management for traInIng, e g. J Rutherford and Mr BIssell,
a former traInIng officer to no avaIl
There are several problems wIth the partIculars provIded. Although It provIdes two
names of the "vanous members of management" that the gnevor allegedly asked for traInIng, It
does not provIde dates when traInIng was requested and demed.
17
It also does not assert the collectIve agreement provIsIOn allegedly vIOlated. ThIS IS sIgmficant
because there IS no nght to trammg, per se under the collectIve agreement. Further the
gnevance appears to assert that others were provIded the trammg, leadmg to overtIme
opportumtIes, but he was not. Yet the partIculars do not reveal whom he IS referrIng to Without
these types of specIfics, the Employer IS left to guess concermng the gnevor's claim of dIsparate
treatment. It cannot mvestIgate It, nor defend ItS actIOns The gnevor had ample tIme to provIde
the reqUIred partIculars but dId not do so Accordmgly thIS gnevance must be dIsmIssed.
The gnevor at the heanng, made a statement concernmg hIS treatment by the Employer
smce he decIded to more fully embrace hIS SIkh hentage and relIgIOus practIces There can be
no questIOn that he fully belIeves that he has been repeatedly mIstreated and dIscnmmated
agamst by hIS employer But arbItratIOn IS a legal process whIch provIdes nghts to all of the
partIes, mcludmg the employer The employer has the nght to know m advance, the case It has
to meet. By faIlmg to provIde the reqUIred specIfics, as ordered m the October 6 2004 order the
gnevor precluded the employer from fully knowmg the Umon's case, mvestIgatmg and
defendmg agamst the allegatIOns made It precluded the Employer from makmg potentIal
tImelIness or other procedural obJ ectIOns As Chair Carter stated m Gardiner supra at p 4 "all
gnevors, regardless of whether they retam legal counsel, are expected to take responsIbIlIty for
the carrIage of theIr gnevance by provIdmg the basIc partIculars underlymg theIr gnevance "
For the reasons set forth above, m regard to SIX of hIS gnevances, Mr Smgh faIled to do that,
despIte havmg, lIterally more than a year to do so
18
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the folloWIng gnevances are dIsmIssed
OPSEUNo 02 C 720
OPSEUNo 01 C 702
OPSEU No 01 C 703
OPSEU No 01 C 705
OPSEU No 01 C 707
OPSEU No 01 C 708
The folloWIng gnevances wIll proceed to heanng
OPSEU No 01 C 701
OPSEU No 01 C 704
OPSEU No 01 C 706
Issued thIS 6th day of July 2005
~ H'ibrmc
RandI H. Abramsky Vice- Chair