HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-3166.Scott.04-12-30 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# 2002-3166 2004-1218
UNION# 2003-0411-0003 2004-0411-0072
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Scott) Union
- and -
The Crown In RIght of Ontano
(Mimstry ofCommumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer
BEFORE Loretta Mikus Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION GavIn Leeb
BarrIster and SOlICItor
FOR THE EMPLOYER F enna MurJ I
Counsel
Management Board Secretanat
HEARING November 19 2004
2
DeCISIon
The gnevor Suzanne Scott, IS a CorrectIOnal Officer at the Ottawa Carleton DetentIOn Centre
On February 13 2003 she filed a gnevance allegIng that the Employer had vIOlated ArtIcle 3 No
DISCnmInatIOn/Employment EqUIty and ArtIcle 9 Health and Safety and Video DIsplay
TermInals, by condomng dIrect employee and management harassment. She asked for an order
dIrectIng the Employer to elImInate all systemIc and dIrect dISCnmInatIOn and harassment, that
an Independent consultant momtor and venfy the Employer's complIance wIth that order that
the elImInatIOn of harassment and dISCnmInatIOn apply across the entIre Mimstry that she be
paid $100 000 00 for paIn and suffenng and that she be compensated for all losses suffered as a
result of the Employer's conduct.
It was the Umon' s posItIOn that the sItuatIOn worsened after she filed the gnevance and, on
March 25 2003 she went off on extended sIck leave, whIch has contInued to the present. She IS
now ready to return to work and has filed another gnevance dated June 21 2004 claimIng that
the Employer has faIled to accommodate her return to work. She IS seekIng full redress and
damages
ThIS Intenm award deals wIth the Umon's motIOn to consolIdate these two gnevances Mr
Leeb counsel for the Umon referred to the GSB's practIce note of 1986 whIch reads as follows
and whIch, It was Said, contInues to be the appropnate test
WHERE ORDER MAYBE MADE
Where two or more proceedIngs are pendIng before the Gnevance Settlement Board and
It appears to the Gnevance Settlement Board that,
(a) they have a questIOn of law and fact In common,
(b) the relIef claimed In them anses out of the same transactIOn or occurrence or
senes of transactIOns or occurrences or
( c ) for any other reason an order ought to be made under thIS rule, the Gnevance
Settlement Board may order that,
(1) the proceedIngs be consolIdated or heard at the same tIme or one ImmedIately
after the other or
(2) any of the proceedIngs be
(i ) stayed untIl a determInatIOn of any other of them,
(iI) abndge the tIme for placIng a gnevance on the heanng lIst.
3
The Umon took the posItIOn that these two gnevances anse from same senes of transactIOns and
have overlappIng and common facts that dIctate they should be heard together The only
dIfference between the two IS the tImIng they wIll reqUIre the same eVIdence and wItnesses
Ms MurJI, counsel for the Employer took the posItIOn that the first gnevance deals wIth the
Issues of harassment and dISCnmInatIOn. There IS no mentIOn of accommodatIOn. The Employer
conceded that It has an oblIgatIOn to accommodate her return to work but that accommodatIOn
anses from her medIcal condItIOn, not from her allegatIOns about harassment and dISCnmInatIOn.
The two are separate and dIStInct Issues and consolIdatIng them wIll only delay the case on the
ments of the earlIer gnevance
I am of the VIew that these two gnevances should be consolIdated. They wIll have common
questIOns of law and fact anSIng from the first gnevance The eVIdence necessary for the Umon
to prove ItS case wIll, accordIng to Mr Leeb Involve medIcal eVIdence about the effect the
harassment and dISCnmInatIOn has had on her health. That eVIdence, the Umon asserted, IS
central to ItS claims on the ments and the remedy It makes no sense to reqUIre the Umon to
present that same eVIdence on the Issue of accommodatIOn In both heanngs It wIll prolong a
decIsIOn on the ments and reqUIre addItIOnal tIme and resources that mIght be aVOIded by the
consolIdatIOn of these two gnevances
The Umon' s motIOn succeeds The two gnevances are to be consolIdated and wIll be contInued
on the days prevIOusly scheduled.
Dated thIS 30th day of December 2004
Loretta Mikus, Vice-Chair