The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-2855.Samsone.06-05-24 Decision Crown Employees Commission de Nj 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# 2004-2855 2004-2857 2005-2476 2005-3698 2005-3699 UNION# 2004-0582-0062,2004-0582-0064 2005-0582-0104 2006-0582-0001 2006-0582-0002 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (Samsone) Union - and - The Crown In RIght of Ontano (Mimstry ofCommumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer BEFORE Damel A. HarrIs Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION RIchard Blair Ryder Wnght Blair & Holmes LLP BarrIsters and SOlICItorS FOR THE EMPLOYER Paul MeIer Counsel Mimstry of Government ServIces TELEPHONE May 1 2006 CONFERENCE 2 DeCISIon ThIS IS an applIcatIOn by the Umon to consolIdate GSB 2005-3698 and GSB 2005-3699 wIth the three matters presently before the Board, beIng GSB 2004-2855 2004-2857 and 2005-2476 SubmIssIOns were made by teleconference heanng. It IS helpful to sketch out the basIc factual and legal Issues raised by each gnevance, startIng wIth the matters currently consolIdated before the Board. It should be noted that those matters were consolIdated by agreement of the partIes resultIng from the file reVIew process GSB 2004-2855 ThIS gnevance IS dated August 13 2004 and reads as follows I gneve Management IS In vIOlatIOn of the CollectIve Agreement IncludIng but not lImIted to ArtIcles 2, 3 9 and 21 I receIved a letter dated July 20 2004 from Michael Stephenson. The contents of thIS letter were slanderous allegatIOns dIrected towards myself whIch are false and unfounded. ThIS letter was also sent to 2 other IndIVIduals and sent by another thus pOIsomng my envIronment In thIS Mimstry GSB 2004-2857 ThIS gnevance IS also dated August 13 2004 and reads as follows I gneve Management IS In vIOlatIOn of the CollectIve Agreement IncludIng by not lImIted to ArtIcles 2, 3 9 and 21 I receIved a letter dated July 20 2004 from Michael Stephenson contaInIng slanderous allegatIOns dIrected towards myself ThIS letter was also sent to 2 other IndIVIduals and sent by another thus pOIsomng my envIronment In thIS Mimstry Although the gnevances appear to be the same, the Umon says that 2004-2855 gneves agaInst the contents of the letter whIle 2004-2857 gneves agaInst the wIde-dIstributIOn of the letter Both claim the same relIef 1 Monetary CompensatIOn 2 Full InVestIgatIOn of these and other allegatIOns put agaInst myself 3 3 Wntten apology 4 Letter removed 5 Cease and desIst of thIS bad practIce of harassment by upper Management. 6 Full accountabIlIty and pumshment put agaInst the person or persons responsIble for these ongOIng Issues GSB 2005-2476 ThIS gnevance IS dated July 12,2005 and reads as follows I gneve that Management (Rob HamblIn & Rose BuhagIar) has specIfically but not exclusIvely vIOlated ArtIcles 2 & 3 of the CollectIve agreement. They have treated me dIfferently and dIscnmInated agaInst me thus caUSIng me to have a further pOIsoned work envIronment by not offenng me the OM16 TRAINING due to my posItIOn In the Local The relIef claimed IS as follows 1 Full OM16 TraInIng ASAP 2 OvertIme for all days traInIng occurred 3 Management cease and desIst of thIS bad practIce of targetIng me due to my posItIOn In the Local GSB 2005-3698 and 2005-3699 These two gnevances read as follows I Gneve that Management (OMI6 Tom AngelIdIs) has specIfically but not exclusIvely vIOlated ArtIcles 2, 3 9 and 21 of the CollectIve Agreement as well as all other pertInent ArtIcles and LegIslatIOn by makIng a threat of vIOlence (death) agaInst me whIle In the workplace on duty dunng a mght ShIft on Saturday January 1 st 2005 I also Gneve that OM16 Huppmann has vIOlated these same ArtIcles as he was In the ShIft Office and wItnessed these comments when they were made and dId nothIng to protect me from thIS threat nor dId he take appropnate actIOns to Inform hIS SupervIsor of the Inappropnate comments or actIOns whIch Mr AngelIdIs dIsplayed thus caUSIng me to be placed In a further pOIsoned work envIronment and JeopardIZIng my Health and Safety I Gneve that Management (Rob HamblIn, Rose BuhagIar DavId Mitchell, Dan Stevens, James Mannerow) at the Toronto East DetentIOn Centre as well as Semor Management (laIn LeIthead, Gary Commeford, Mike Conry Deborah Newman, Jan Jeffery's, John Rabeau, SIlva MinassIan and Monty KWInter) from 25 Grosvenor Street has specIfically but not exclusIvely vIOlated ArtIcles 2,3 9 21 and 32 17 of the CollectIve Agreement. The above people named have been and are aware that I was threatened wIth death by OM16 Tom AngelIdIs whIle In the workplace and dId nothIng to protect my health and safety due to the fact that Mr AngelIdIs submItted an occurrence report where he demes that any such threat was ever made Management has not conducted an officIal 4 InVestIgatIOn and has accepted thIS falsIfied document and contInues to contnbuted to an already proven pOIsoned workplace and allow thIS cnmInal behavIOur to eXISt. In short, the first gnevance raises the senous allegatIOn that the gnevor receIved a death threat form one of hIS supervIsors SeemIngly the second gnevance arose as a result of the gnevor obtaInIng InformatIOn that he belIeved corroborated the events of the first gnevance The Submissions of the Parties EssentIally the umon submItted that all the gnevances raise Issues of dISCnmInatIOn and health and safety In the context of the gnevor's actIvIty In the umon. It said that there was an overarchIng Issue of dISCnmInatIOn because ofumon actIvIty that would be best dealt wIth by consolIdatIng the gnevances The employer submItted that there were no common Issues of fact or law that would JustIfy consolIdatIOn and the two new gnevances It was also submItted that they have not been through the steps of the gnevance process, although, they have been referred to the Board. Reasons for Decision The GSB's Rules of Procedure provIde as follows 3 Consolidation of Cases Where two or more proceedIngs are pendIng before the GSB and It appears to the GSB that, (a) they have a questIOn of law or 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 GSB on such terms as It consIders advIsable, may abndge the tIme for placIng a gnevance on the heanng lIst, and may order that (d) the proceedIngs be consolIdated, or heard at the same tIme or one ImmedIately after the other and/or 5 (e) any of the proceedIngs be stayed untIl after the determInatIOn of any other of them In my VIew the two gnevances sought to be consolIdated wIth the three currently before me do not meet the test of the rule The allegatIons set out In those two gnevances are wholly dIstInct from those before me They centre on a dIscrete epIsode InvolvIng dIfferent IndIVIduals than the other matters currently before me The purpose of consolIdatIOn IS to make the best use of resources by saVIng tIme as well as reduce the nsk of InCOnsIstent findIngs GIven the dIStInCt nature of the allegatIOns In these two gnevances, neIther goal would be promoted by consolIdatIOn. AccordIngly the umon's request to consolIdate these two addItIOnal gnevances IS demed. Dated at Toronto thIS 24th day of May 2006