HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-2877.Morgan.2020-07-07 DecisionCrown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2017-2877; 2017-3316; 2018-2673; 2019-1281; 2019-1282; 2019-1283; 2019-1284;
2019-1419; 2019-1840; 2019-2920
UNION# 2017-0271-0016; 2017-0271-0017; 2018-0271-0011;2019-0271-0008;2019-0271-
0009;2019-0271-0010;2019-0271-0011;2019-0271-0012;2019-0271-0013;2020-0271-0014
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Morgan) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of the Solicitor General) Employer
BEFORE
Diane Gee
Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION
Ed Holmes
Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP
Counsel
FOR THE EMPLOYER Peter Dailleboust
Treasury Board Secretariat
Legal Services Branch
Senior Counsel
HEARING DATE October 9, 2019 and June 29, 2020 (via
videoconference)
-2-
DECISION
[1] The grievor has filed the following 10 grievances:
• GSB#2017-2877; OPSEU#2017-0271-0016
• GSB#2017-3316; OPSEU# 2017-0271-0017
• GSB#2018-2673; OPSEU#2018-0271-0011
• GSB# 2019-1281; OPSEU#2019-0271-0008
• GSB#2019-1282; OPSEU#2019-0271-0009
• GSB#2019-1283; OPSEU#2019-0271-0010
• GSB#2019-1284; OPSEU#2019-0271-0011
• GSB#2019-1419; OPSEU#2019-0271-0012
• GSB#2019-1840; OPSEU#2019-0271-0013
• GSB#2019-2920; OPSEU#2020-0271-0014
[2] On October 19, 2019, the Union brought a motion to have all 10 of the grievances
consolidated. I reserved my decision pending a day of mediation to be held on
June 29, 2020. Mediation on June 29, 2020 did not result in a resolution and
accordingly I hereby give my decision in respect of the Union’s motion to
consolidate the 10 grievances.
[3] By email dated June 29, 2020 the Employer advised it would agree to have the
2017 and 2019 grievances consolidated together, but the Employer maintains that
the 2018 grievance is separate and distinct as it pertains to a discrete issue of a
special and compassionate leave request and a different manager was involved
during this time period.
[4] The grievances filed in 2017 allege a failure on the Employer’s part to address
workload issues. The grievances filed in 2019 vary but, generally speaking,
include allegations of a failure to accommodate, discrimination, and harassment.
As indicated above, the Employer has agreed that the 2017 and 2019 grievances
are to be consolidated. The 2018 grievance contains the following Statement of
Grievance:
I grieve that: contrary to Article 2.1 Management Rights
(Inappropriate use of); Article 3.1 (No
discrimination/Employment Equity); Article 49, Article 49.2
(Leave Special/Compassionate); Articles 20.10.1 (Voluntary
Leaves);and any other related Articles, Acts, Policies, or
Jurisprudence; (ie – Personal Emergency Leave under
Employment Standards Act); the Employer is in violation of the
above by denying me the ability to utilize any of a variety of
these leave options for emergency family reasons on the
following dates:
June 11, 12, 13, 15, 20, 21, 25 and 26, 2018.
-3-
The Settlement Desired in the 2018 grievance includes: “A written declaration
from the employer that these discriminatory practices to cease going forward.”
[5] The Employer objects to the 2018 grievance being consolidated with the 2017 and
2019 grievances on the basis that it involves a discrete issue concerning a leave
request made to a different manager. Having regard to the Statement of the
Grievance and Settlement Desired as set out above, the 2018 grievance alleges,
amongst other things, that the denial of a leave constitutes discriminatory
treatment; discriminatory treatment is one of the allegations advanced in the 2019
grievances. The events underlying the allegations in the 2018 grievance occurred
very close in time to those underlying the 2019 grievances and in between the
allegations in the 2017 and 2019 grievances. The grievor would be prejudiced in
her ability to advance her claim of discrimination if she were not permitted to raise
the 2018 allegation in the hearing of the 2017 and 2019 grievances. Further, if the
2018 grievance were not consolidated, and thus heard on its own, there is a risk
the Union would seek to call evidence of the discrimination that underlies the 2017
and 2019 grievances in order to support its case of discrimination in 2018. This
would be inefficient and raises the possibility of inconsistent decisions.
[6] For the foregoing reasons, it is my determination that all of the ten grievances
listed in paragraph 1 are to be consolidated.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 7th day of July, 2020.
“Diane Gee”
______________________
Diane Gee, Arbitrator