HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-1076.Correia.2023-02-07 Decision
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. west
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
GSB# 2021-1076
UNION# 2021-0310-0007
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Correia) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services) Employer
BEFORE Joseph D. Carrier Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION Andrew Mindszenthy
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Felix Lau
Treasury Board Secretariat
Legal Services Branch
Counsel
HEARING April 26, 2022, August 11, 2022 and
January 30, 2023
-2-
Decision
[1] The Grievor, Ciji Correia, claims that she was the victim of harassment when, on August
12, 2021, Tyler Barclay, a Manager, made remarks to her which, in context, she
considered demeaning. She seeks a declaration that his remarks and the manner in which
he made them were “harassment” and violated the Collective Agreement and relevant
legislation.
[2] The Parties here have asked that I issue a “bottom-line” decision without reasons as
provided for in Article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement. Such decisions are designed to
resolve the current grievance only and are issued, as is this decision, without precedential
value.
[3] There was significant viva voce testimony with conflicting versions from the two as to
exactly what was said. Accordingly, I believe that the matter warrants at least some
modest comment as to the reason(s) for my findings which follow:
i). The manager’s remarks and the manner in which he delivered those remarks did
not rise to the level of “harassment” as characterized in arbitral jurisprudence.
ii). At worst, the situation may be characterized as a work-related disagreement during
which the manager became frustrated and took issue with the Grievor’s persistence
in challenging as unclear a newly introduced COVID screening document that all
persons, including her at that moment, were required to complete prior to entering
the facility. As a union H&S representative her concerns may have been appropriate
for later discussion, but, at that moment, the manager was simply trying to clear her
-3-
for work as an employee. In the circumstances, he over-reacted and sarcastically
suggested that the Grievor ought to be able to read and understand the document
like other employees, but that he would take her through it himself given her view
that it was unclear and that she herself did not understand it. Clearly, the remarks
were not meant literally.
iii). Nonetheless, I am of the view that the Manager’s remarks were inappropriate and
sarcastic. Further, I am of the view that sarcasm when directed at another is almost
always hurtful and demeaning. So it was in this case.
iv). However, I am not satisfied that as a single “one off” exchange, the Manager’s
remarks rose to the level of “harassment” as characterized in arbitral jurisprudence.
(see for example: Toronto (City) and CUPE Local 79 (Fuller), 2017 CarswellOnt
18600, 133C.L.A.S. 218 (Goodfellow)).
v). In the circumstances I conclude:
a) that the Manager’s remarks were not “harassment”;
b) that the requested declaration will not be issued;
c) that the Grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 7th day of February 2023.
“Joseph D. Carrier”
Joseph D. Carrier, Arbitrator