HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-2330.Larson.21-05-31 Decision
Crown 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# 2019-2330
UNION# 2019-0270-0005
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Larson) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Transportation) Employer
BEFORE Diane Gee Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION Isaac Handley
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER George Parris
Treasury Board Secretariat
Legal Services Branch
Counsel
HEARING DATE May 21, 2021
- 2 -
DECISION
[1] This is a grievance filed on behalf of William Larson in respect of which the
Employer has brought a motion that the matter be dismissed on the basis that it
was not filed in a timely manner. This matter was referred to the Grievance
Settlement Board pursuant to section 22.16 of the Collective Agreement.
[2] The Collective Agreement requires a grievance to be filed “within 30 days after
the circumstances giving rise to the complaint have occurred.” The most recent
event relied upon in support of this grievance occurred on June 17, 2018. The
grievance was filed on November 12, 2019; no less than 14 months after the
deadline provided for in the Collective Agreement.
[3] The Union asks that I exercise my discretion, recognized by article 22.14.7 of the
Collective Agreement, to apply section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995
(the “LRA”) and extend the relevant time limit.
[4] The parties are agreed that the following factors are to be considered in the
course of determining whether the preconditions, necessary for the exercise of
an arbitrator’s discretion to extend timelines, are present:
a. The nature of the grievance
b. Whether the delay occurred in initially launching the grievance or at some
later stage
c. Whether the grievor was responsible for the delay
d. The reasons for the delay
e. The length of the delay
i. Whether the Employer could reasonably have assumed the grievance had
been abandoned
[5] The grievance alleges harassment and bullying that took place from 2004 to
2009 and again in 2017 and 2018. The delay occurred in initially launching the
grievance which is the most problematic stage for delay to occur as it means the
Employer is not even on notice of the allegations. The reasons for the delay are
stated to be that the grievor was concerned, if he were to complain, that his job
prospects or job security would suffer. The grievor’s stated reason for not filing a
timely grievance is not consistent with the fact that he complained to
management following each incident that is particularized. The delay is 14
months; which is a considerable length of time far in excess of the delay in
respect of which arbitrators might grant an extension of time. Finally, on the
facts of this case, where the grievor did in fact complain about the events and
then did not file a grievance, the Employer could reasonably have assumed no
grievance would be filed.
- 3 -
[6] For the foregoing reasons, I decline to exercise my discretion to extend the time
limits for the filing of this grievance. The grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario, this 31st day of May, 2021.
“Diane Gee”
_______________________
Diane Gee, Arbitrator