The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGuider 11-10-01INTHEMATTEROFANARBITRATION BETWEEN THEONTARIOPUBLICSERVICEUNION,LOCAL144 The'Union' -AND CRAJGWOODYOUTHSERVICES The'Employer' INTHEMATTEROFAGRIEVANCEOFMR.JONATHANGUIDER HEARDINTHECITYOFLONDON,ONTARIOONTHEFOLLOWINGDATES:November18,2008,October 30,2009,April14,22,May25,September17,2010,January26andMay27,2011 APPEARANCES: FORTHEEMPLOYER: Mr.PeterThorup,Counsel Ms.KathrynHogan,ManagerofHumanResources,andothers FORTHEUNION Ms.DonnaWolford,CounselonNovember2B,2008 Ms.MihadFahmy,Counsel,forremaininghearingdates Mr.JonathanGuider,Grievorandothers INTRODUCTION Thisisamatterwhichhastakenaratherunusualpathincomingtoitsfinalconclusion.AstheEmployer, theUnionandtheGrievorareaware,thePartiesinitiallyconsentedtoArbitratorFrankReillytopreside overanddeterminethismatter.ArbitratorReillycommencedthishearingin2008andattemptedto mediateasettlementofthematter.ThoseeffortsprovedunsuccessfulandtheUnionandEmployer commencedlitigatingthegrievance.Soonthereafter,asaresultofamotionbroughtbyCounselforthe Employer,anInterimAwardwasissuedbyArbitratorReilly,datedNovember22,2009.ThisInterim Awardsetouttheissuestobelitigatedandtheprocedurebywhichtheseissueswouldbeadvanced. TheUnionandtheEmployercontinuedwiththehearingofthismatterupuntilJanuary26th,2011.At thattime,ifnotbefore,allwereawarethatArbitratorReillywassufferingfromserioushealthissues. ArbitratorReilly'sfinaldayofpresidingovertheseproceedingswasJanuary26,2011.Thisrepresented thefinaldayforthecallingofevidenceinthismatter.Sadly,shortlythereafter,inMarch2011,he passedaway. OntheconsentofboththeEmployerandtheUnionIassumedtheroleoftheArbitratorforthepurpose ofcompletingthismatterandtorenderingthefinalAward.Thismadepracticalsenseforanumberof reasonsnotleastthecostandinconveniencebothPartieswouldhaveenduredhadtheybeenrequired tore-litigatethecase,thefactthatIhadattendedatprevioushearingstoassistArbitratorReillyandhad alsoreviewedandspokenwithhimabouttheevidenceandhisgeneralintentionswithrespecttothe outcomeand,finally,thatthehearingneededafinaldeterminationasquicklyaspossiblegiventhe rather'sensitive'natureofthecomplaintsandtheover-allevidence.Forthedelayinrenderingthisfinal AwardImustapologizeandtakefullresponsibilityfortheinconveniencethatitmayhavecaused. AsaresultthematterresumedonMay27th,2011,whereuponfinalargumentswerecompleted.After reviewingArbitratorReilly'sextensivenotes,thenotesthatItookfrommydiscussionswithhim,the numerousexhibitsthatwerefiledduringthecourseofthehearingandhavingheardfinalsubmissionsI renderthefollowing. BACKGROUND. i, TheEmployer,CraigwoodYouthServices,isanaccreditedchildren'smentalhealthagency whoseactivitiesandoperationsaresubjecttothe'ChildandFamilyServicesAct,R.S.O.1990 (Asamended)'andthe'YouthCriminalJusticeAct(S.C.2002,c.1).Itisgovernedbyavolunteer boardofgovernorsandissubject,forthemostpart,foritsfundingfromthegovernmentof Ontario. 2.AtallrelevanttimestheEmployerwasapartytoacollectivebargainingrelationshipwiththe Union,theOntarioPublicServiceUnionofOntario,Local144. 3, TheEmployermaintainsfourlocationsthroughouttheCityofLondonandits'surrounding communities.Thisgrievancearisesfromthe'AilsaCraigcampuslocatedat26996NewOntario Road,AilsaCraig.IunderstandthatAilsaCraigisapproximatelyforty(40}kilometersfromthe CityofLondon. 4, TheEmployerandits'staffarechargedwithoverseeingtheimplementationofprograms-for theirresidents.Theseresidentscouldbedescribedas'troubledyouths'.Theevidencesuggested thattheseyouthshavebeendiagnosedwithawidevarietyofbehaviouralproblemsthatcanif leftuntreatedandunsupervisedleadtovolatileand/orviolentresults. S.TheGrievorisa'ChildandYouthWorker'andisclassifiedasa'CYWZ'.Hehasbeenemployed withtheEmployersinceSeptember2000.AcopyoftheGrievor'spositiondescriptionwas enteredas"Exhibit6"duringthecourseoftheproceedings. 6, Inaddition,theGrievorisaUnionStewardforLocalandalsoenjoysthepositionofHealthand SafetyRepresentative.AccordingtotheGrievorandhisUnionhisactivitiesinthesepositions andtheEmployersallegedresponsetheretohasleadtotheallegeddiscriminationand harassmentthattheGrievorcomplainsofinthisandotherpleadings. 7. InotethatintheirvivevoceandwrittenevidencetheUnionsuggeststhattheGrievorhas 'clashedwithmembersofmanagement'inhiscapacityasaUnionrepresentative.IdrawnO negativeinferenceabouttheGrievorfromthiscomment.Rather,itrepresentsacentraltheme totheevidenceofboththeUnionandEmployer. g* TheUnion'sevidencedescribedalengthyanddetailedsetofincidentsbywhichtheGrievorwas saidtohavebeenallegedlyharassedand/ordiscriminatedagainstcontrarytotheprotections affordedhimbytheOntarioHumanRightsCode,R.S.O.3.995,(Asamended),andtheOntario LabourRelationsAct,R.S.O.1995(Asamended).Theseallegationsdatebackasfaras2004and aresetoutingreatlengththroughoutthisAward,below. 90 TheEmployerhasadmittedtotwoofthemanyallegationsraisedbytheUnion.However CounselfortheEmployersubmittedthatithasmitigatedagainstthese'breaches'bywayof apologiesand/oradmissionsthatcertainothercommentswereunfortunateormadeinpoor taste.Thesecomments,however,Counselwentontoarguedonotdemonstrate'harassment' oraviolationofthe'Code'.ThatsaidtheEmployervehementlydeniesalltheremaining allegationsdescribingthemas"mis-leading,self-servingandinmanycases,false." 10.ItisavastunderstatementtosuggestthattheEmployerandtheUnionarepolarizedbothasto howcertainsituationsshouldbeinterpretedbut,moreacutely,whethercertainincidentstook placeatall.TobestunderstandthatIwillnowendeavortoprovideanoverviewoftheevidence andpositionsoftheUnionandtheEmployeraspresentedduringthecourseofthisArbitration hearing. ALLEGATIONSANDEVIDENCEOFTHEUNIONANDTHEEMPLOYER 11. AsIhavereferencedabove,allegationsoftheEmployer'smisconductmadebytheGrievorare manyandtouchuponavarietyofworkplacesituationsandissues.TileEmployer'sresponseset outintheirevidenceandrelatedpleadingsnotonlychallengestheveryessenceoffthe Grievor'sallegationsbutalsointroducesadditionalfactsthattheybelieveshedadditionallight upontheinappropriateanddifficultbehaviourthattheyhavebeenrequiredtoendurefromthe Grievor.TheEmployer,particularlyintheirfinalsummationstookthepositionthattheGrievor wasthemain,ifnotthesolesourceofallthecontroversythathasunfoldedatCraigwoodover thesepastfewyears. 12.TheUnion'sevidenceisbestsummarizedbycombiningthevive-vocetestimonyoftheGrievor andthewrittenpleadingsthathavebeensubmittedtotheOntarioHumanRightsTribunalina complaintdatedMarch20,2009. 13.FiledunderSection34ofthe'Code'theGrievorallegedthathisrightshadbeenviolatedonthe groundsofdisability,sex(including'sexualharassment,pregnancyandgenderidentity'),family statusandreprisalorthethreatthereof.InadditiontotheEmployertheGrievornameda numberofmanagementstaffincludingMessrs.'Ashbourne,LiehmanandMs.Hogan,Whitman andGedney. 14.TheessenceoftheGrievor'scomplaintisthathehasoveranextendedperiodoftimeandina systematicfashionbeendiscriminatedagainstbytheEmployer.Thebasisforthisdiscrimination, theGrievorexplainedwasprimarilyhis"unionactivitywhichoftenincludingtryingtoprotect HumanRights".Putanotherway,theGrievorthathishumanrightswereinfringedbythe Employerbecauseofhisroleasaunionrepresentative. 15.TheallegedinappropriatebehaviourattributedtotheEmployerdatesbackasfarasSeptember 2004.ThisinitialincidentinvolvedajobpostingthattheGrievor'bidfor'onthelastdayofthe competition.WhentheGrievorwasofferedaninterviewthetimewassaidtobeinconvenient totheGrievorbecausehisspousewasundergoinganultrasoundattheverysametime. AlthoughtheGrievordidacceptthemeetingtimehelaterdeclinedtoattendashefeltitwas moreimportanttobewithhisspouse. 16.AsecondinterviewtimewasofferedtotheGrievor.Heviewedthistimeasinconvenient becauseitfelljustbeforehewastocommencehisshift.Neverthelesstheinterviewwentahead. DuringthecourseoftheinterviewandinresponsetoaquestionfrommanagementtheGrievor identifiedhisfamilyashis"numberonepriority.Hebelievesthatthis'admission'was subsequentlyusedagainsthiminadiscriminatorymanneratalatertime. 17.ItissufficienttostatethattheGrievorwasunsuccessfulinhisbidfortheposition.Helater claimedthattheEmployerdidnotorcouldprovideanyrationalfordenyinghimtheposition andthereforeconcludedthattheydiscriminatedagainsthim,inpartduetohis'familystatus'. This,healleges,formsmanyoftheactsofdiscriminationcarriedoutagainsthim. 18.AsmentionedabovethetimeframeallegedfortheEmployer'smisconductisentailsalengthy periodoftime,approximatelyfouryears.Thatsaidtheevidencesuggeststherewasaperiod from2005throughearly2007wherenothingofanysignificanceoccurred. 19.However,labourpeacecametoanendinJanuary2007whenanallegationarosethatthe Grievorwasusingcompanyemailforunionbusiness.TheGrievordeniedtheaccusationstating thathewasonlycommunicatingwithacertainindividualasa'co-worker'andnotasherunion representative.AlthoughnodisciplineresultedfromtheincidenttheGrievorbelievedhewas beingdiscriminatedagainstonthebasisofhisunionactivity. 20.Inthelatterpartof2007andinearly2008adisputearosebetweentheGrievorandhis supervisorMs.SheriWhitman.Inotefromcertaincorrespondenceintroducedduringthecourse ofthishearingandthroughcertainoralevidence,theGrievorandWhitmanenjoyedarelatively collegialworkrelationship.However,thisbegantosourwhenWhitmanbegantoraisetheissue oftheamountoftimetheGrievorwasawayfromhisjob.Thisdialogueeventuallyfocusedon theamountoftimethattheGrievorwastakingonwhattheUniondescribedas"homevisit dropoffs'.Thisdiscussion,theGrievoralleges,includedqueriesandcriticismsthatWhitman madewithrespecttotimetakenbytheGrievortoattendtoUnionbusinessandtosicktime, includingtimetakentorecoverfromavasectomyprocedure. 21.IwillreturnlatertotheallegationsmadeagainstMs.Whitman,specificallywithreferencetothe allegationsthatsheengagedindiscriminatoryconductcontrarytotheOntarioHumanRights CodeandtheOntarioLabourRelationsAct. 22.ThedialoguebetweenWhitmanandtheGrievorcontinuedtothepointwhereWhitmanaltered theGrievor'sjobresponsibilities.OnoraboutJanuary25,2008,hewasinstructednottogoout ona"dropoff"butinsteadwastoremainatthecampus.Thisalterationwasnotaone-time directivefromWhitmanbutrepresentedalong-term,ifnotpermanentalterationofhisjob responsibilities.TheGrievorindicatedthathewasextremelyupsetwiththisdirectiveandwhat itwouldmeantohim.Heclaimedthatthe"dropoffs'or,toputitadifferentway,'tripsoff campus',representedoneof,ifnotthemostdesirablepartofhisoccupation.Otakethemaway notonlycausedhimgreatupsetbutalsosubjectedtoridiculeandembarrassmentfromhis colleaguesandtheyoungadultsheworkedwith.Inotethatnoevidencewascalledtosupport theGrievor'sperceptionthathewassomehowviewedinanegativeorlesserlightafterthis happened. 23.Thealternationofhisworkresponsibilities,theGrievorbelievedconstitutedharassment becausehewasbeingsingledoutbytheEmployerandthusaviolationofhishumanrights. 24.InadditiontocommentsmadebyWhitman,above,withrespecttotheGrievor'svasectomy,the Grievorbelievedhewassubjectedtosexualharassmentbymanagement.Themostegregious, accordingtotheGrievor,wereremarksmadebyGedneyinlateNovemberorDecemberof 2007. 25.Gedneywassaidtohavestatedthatshe"couldn'tstandkids"andquestionedtheGrievorasto howmanychildrenhehad.Whenheanswered"three"GedneyallegedlyrepliedtotheGrievor, "ohmyyoubreeder,Idon'tknowhowyoudothis." 26.ItisimportanttonotethattheevidenceoftheGrievorinbothhiscomplaintandinhisown evidencestatethattheseremarksweremadedirectlytohim.Iwillreturntotheveracityofthis claimlaterinthisAward. 27.Further,itshouldbenotedanditisacknowledgedbytheGrievorthatGedneydidsubsequently apologizefortheseremarkswhichweremadenotonlytoorabouttheGrievorbuttoorabout otherstaffmembers. 28.IturnnowtoanotherincidentcomplainedofbytheGrievorinvolvingashiftwhere,amongst otherthings,theGrievordecidedtofileaformalpolicereportagainstaresident.Thiswasin responsetoasituationwherebyaChildren'sAidSocietyinvestigationhadbeeninitiatedagainst himasaresultofacomplaintbythesameresident. 29.AtacertainpointtheEmployerinitiatedtheirowninvestigationtodetermineiftheGrievorhad inappropriatelycommencedacriminalcomplaintagainstaresident.Asaresultofthe investigationa"letterofunderstanding"wassubsequentlyplacedintheGrievor'ssupervisory file.Iunderstandthatthisisnon-disciplinaryinnature.TheGrievorhowever,viewedboththe investigationandthe"letterofunderstanding"asformsofharassmentthatviolatedhisrights underthe'Code'. 30.TheGrievoralsobroughtforwardanumberofallegationsclaimingthattheEmployerhadnot accommodatedhimduetoillness.TheGrievorclaimedthatherequiredtobeaccommodated becauseofthestressthathewasunder.ThisstresstheGrievorallegedwasdirectlyaresultof thedifficultsituationthattheGrievorfoundhimselfinatwork. 31.TherewerealsoallegationsthattheEmployerhadfailedtolaunchaninvestigationorproperly investigateanumberofthevariousallegationsthattheGrievorhadbroughttotheirattention. 32.Asdiscussedinparagraphs12,13and14,above,theGrievor'sallegationsarenumerousand touchuponawiderangeofworkplaceissuesandpotentialviolationsofthe'Code'andthe 'Act'.Itwouldappearthatvirtuallyeveryissuethathasarisenattheworkplacebetweenthe Grievorandmanagementhasgrownorhasbeeninterpretedtogrowtocrisisproportions.Itis inthatlightthatIturnnowtotheEmployer'sresponse. 33.TheEmployer,quitesuccinctly,believesthisgrievance,likethecomplainttotheTribunal,is broughtin"badfaithtoharassandcauseanxietytoCraigwoodManagers." 34.The'globalview'oftheGrievorisbestsummedupatparagraph15oftheirresponsetothe complainttotheTribunalwhenitstatedthat: "TheApplicanthasdemonstratedbehaviourandattitudeswhichareentirely inconsistentwiththeAgency'sprinciplesandcorevalues.TheApplicantrefusesto recognizethatothersmayhavevalidyetdifferingpointsofview.TheApplicant consistentlyrevives"old"complaints,andmakesbroad,unfoundedaccusationsabout others.WhenevertheApplicantisdissatisfied,heypicallyclaimssometypeofgeneric discriminationand/orreprisal." 35.WithrespecttotheissuessurroundingtheGrievor'saccommodationtheEmployerstatedthatit wasn'tuntilaSeptember19,2008meetingthattheGrievorindicatedthathewasseeking accommodation.NothingwasreceivedaboutrestrictionsetaluntilthePartiesmetwith ArbitratorReillyonNovember18,2008andthepertinentcorrespondencewasnotforwardedto theEmployeruntilNovember26th, 36.Notwithstandingtheabsenceofcertaindocumentation,theEmployer'sevidencewasthatsick payWasprovidedtotheGrievoruntilFebruaryof2009.Itwasfurtheruncontrovertedevidence thattheGrievorreturnedtofulltimeemploymentonFebruary20,2009notwithstandingthe factthathehadindicatedthathewasto'gradually'returntoworkbyApril2009. 37.WithrespecttotheallegationsofsexualharassmenttheEmployerdeniedanyknowledgethat hisleavehadbeendeniedforavasectomyprocedureorthathewouldotherwisebepunished fortakingtimeoffforthesame. 38. TheEmployeralsostatedthattheGrievorwastakingfartoogreatalibertywiththeremark madebyGedney.ItisnotdeniedthatthecommentwasmadebyGedneybuttheEmployer deniedthattheremarkwasmadeinhispresenceorwasspecificallydirectedathim. Notwithstanding,theEmployerrecognizedthattheremarkwasinappropriateandmadein extremelypoortaste.Gedneyapologizedfortheremark. 39. WithrespecttotheallegationthatWhitman'sremarksweremadeforthepurposeofinterfering withtheGrievor'sunionactivities,contrarytothe'Act',therewasnodenialthattheseremarks weremade.Whitmanherselfadmittedtosuchduringherveryemotionaltestimonythatwas fullofremorse. 40. However,theCounselfortheEmployerfirmlyrejectedthesuggestionthattheamendmentsto theGrievor'sworkresponsibilitiesweremadeinresponsetohisUnionactivities.Itwasthe Employer'sevidencethattheEmployercouldnotallowtheGrievorexcessivetimeawayfrom thecampuson"dropoffs." 41.TheEmployerprovidedevidencewheretheGrievor'freelanced'(mydescription)onadropoff toa"FutureShop"inLondonthatwasbothunsanctionedandhadtheeffectofleavingastaff memberwithtwoyouthstheywerenotfamiliarwithforaperiodofoverfourhours.This,the Employerdeterminedwasthe'laststraw'sincetheEmployerhadraisedsimilarconcernswith theGrievorviaaprevioussupervisor. 42. WithrespecttothebroaderallegationthattheharassmentcomplainedofbytheGrievorwas relatedtohisUnionactivitiestheEmployerattemptedtodemonstratethattheGrievorhad beenabletoenjoytimeofffortheseactivitieswithoutimpunity.Itwasnotuntilthe conversationwithWhitmanthattheGrievorbegantopushthisissue.EvenWhitman'sremarks, theEmployerclaimed,werenotmadetopreventhimfromrepresentinghisUnion. 43. Finally,theEmployerdeniedanyoftheremaining/outstandingallegationsraisedbytheGrievor asbeingwithoutanyfactualfoundation.TheGrievor,theyclaimedbasedeverythingon perception,selfishnessandanattitudethatwasantitheticaltotheworkplace.Asaresultthey requestedthatallofthecomplaintsbedismissedandnoneoftheremediessoughtbegranted. DETERMINATIONRE:ALLEGEDVIOLATIONOFGRIEVOR'SHUMANRIGHTS 44.InbwturntotheGrievor'snumerousallegationsthathishumanrights,asprotectedbythe CollectiveAgreementandtheOntarioHumanRightsCode,R.S.O.1995,(Asamended),have beenviolatedbytheEmployerandoritsmanagerialstaff.Theseallegedbreachesareexplicitly setoutinhisApplicationtotheOntarioHumanRightsCommissionunderSection34(Form1)of 'TheAct'.TheywerefurtherdescribedviatheGrievor'sviva-voceevidencetothisBoardof Arbitration.ItismydeterminationthattheGrievorandhisUnionhaveleft'nostoneunturned' withrespecttotheirattemptstopresentalloftheGrievor'sconcernswithrespecttosaid allegedviolationsofhishumanrights. 45.Ialsonote,parenthetically,thatthePartieshadaccesstotwoproceduralopportunitiesto resolvethesematterspriortothisArbitrationhearing.Thesearethegrievanceprocedureand, secondly,aprocessknowntothePartiesasa'conflictresolutionmeeting'.Iunderstandsthat the latterisaprocedureavailabletotheUnionandtheEmployerthatrunsparalleltobut outsideoftheCollectiveAgreement.Itisobvioustostatethatneitheroftheseprocedures producedasuccessfuloutcome. 46.Finally,theGrievorhasexplicitlydecidedtopursuethismatterviatheGrievanceandArbitration procedureforafullandfinalresolution.ThiswasconfirmedintheInterimAwardofArbitrator Reilly,datedNovember22,2009. 47.However,toclarifythejurisdictionoftheArbitratorinthismatter,IshouldremindtheParties thatinthemid-1990stheOntarioLabourRelationsActwasamendedtoprovideArbitrators withtheabilitytointerpretandapplyemployment-relatedstatutes,suchastheOntario LabourRelationsActandTheOntarioHumanRightsCodeinthecontextofagrievance Arbitrationhearing.Thisparticularamendmenthassurvivedanumberofmajorrevisionstothe 'Act'.Its,theamendment,policyrationalisasoundone;itenablestheworkplacePartiesto attempttoresolvealloutstandingmattersinone(myemphasis)legalforumratherthanre litigatingthesameissueintwoandpossiblythreeotherlocations.ItwasArbitrator'sexplicit intention,asitremainsmine,toemploythepowersthatareprovidedbythestatuteinorderto facilitateafinaldeterminationofalltheissuesthatresonatefromthisgrievance. 48.TheGrievorallegesthathehasbeendiscriminatedagainstonthefollowinggrounds:disability, sex,familystatusand,finally,reprisalorthethreatofreprisalfromhisEmployer.Asmentioned earlier,theGrievorhasnamedfivemembersoftheseniormanagementgroup,Graham Ashbourne,KathrynHogan,LotharLiehmans,ShariWhitmanandJacindaGedney.Asidefrom seekingtheusualdeclarationthathisrightshavebeenviolatedtheGrievorseeksawiderange ofremediesincludingaclaimfor180,000indamages. 49.TheComplaintfiledwiththeCommissionreflectsthecontentsoftheGrievanceandthe evidencepresentedbytheUnion.Itallegesapatternof"discriminationandharassmentand reprisals"thatcommencedoverthepastseveralyearsinacontinuousandsystemicmanner.As IhavestatedelsewhereinthisAwardtheharassmentissaidtohavemanifesteditselfvia commentsmadebyWhitmanandGedney,tothedenialofapromotionand'training opportunities'andquestionsrelatedtotheGrievor'sabsencefromworkandavasectomy procedurethathehadendured.Finally,thenever-ending'workplaceconflict'wassaidtohave causedtheGrievormentalstresswhichtheEmployertooknopositivestepstoaccommodate. 50.AlthoughacknowledgingthatthetwoofthemanyincidentscomplainedofbytheGrievordid occur,theEmployerhasatalltimesemphaticallydeniedthatnoviolationsoftheGrievor's rightshaveoccurred.InhisclosingsubmissionsCounseladdressedeachandeveryallegationto supporttheEmployer'sviewthattheGrievorhasnotmadeoutasuccessfulcase.Heconcluded bystatingtheGrievor'sallegationswere"withoutmerit"and,further,failedtodiscloseaprima facieviolationofeithertheCollectiveAgreementortheOntarioHumanRightsCode.Hecalled onmetodismisstheUnion'scaseinitsentiretyand,ofcourse,providenoremedialrelief. 51.IfonewastosummarizetheEmployer'sviewoftheGrievorIbelieveitissafetodescribeitas follows:heisanindividualwhoisalmostpastthepointofsupervision,hehasasenseof entitlementthatleadshimselfalonetodeterminewhatworkplacerulesandpoliciesapplyto himandwhichofthoseheshouldadhereto,heuseshispositionwiththeUniontoadvancehis ownpersonalagendaand,finally,hedisplaysanattitudethatdemonstratesarefusaltoaccept oracknowledgeconstructivecriticism.WhiletheEmployeracknowledgesthattheGrievorhas andpossiblycoulddemonstratesignificantprofessionalisminhispositionthisisunlikelyto occurunlesshisattitudeandoverallbehaviourchange. 52.Allegationsofworkplaceharassmenthavebecomemorefrequentoverthesepastseveralyears. OnonehandthiscanbeseenasapositivedevelopmentinthatitwillassistAdjudicatorsin bringingtoaccountthoseindividualswhoengagein"repetitive,unwelcomeandoffensive behaviour."(ArbitratorReillyatpage2ofVitecCorp.AnOwensComingCompanyvCAW Canada,Local27unreported).ThatsaidAdjudicatorsmustalsobeawareoftheseriousnature ofsuchanallegationorallegations.Thisviewpointisbestsummarizedinthedecisionof ArbitratorKilgourinRe=Toronto(City)andCUPE,Local79(Guzman)35LAC(4th)233wherehe statedthat: "Achargeofharassmentagainstanemployerisaveryseriousmatter,particularlywhen viewedinthecontextoftheheightenedawarenesstoharassmentinthecurrentlabour relationsenvironment." ArbitratorKilgourwentontostatethat: "Iwouldbeveryreluctanttoallowagrievanceallegingharassmentunlesstheevidence ledmetoconcludethatthegrievorhadbeensubjectedtobehaviourwhichcouldbe broughtwithinthestrictmeaningofthetermharassment." InotethatArbitratorKilgour'sdecisionwaswrittenin1990.Sincethattimewehaveseena numberofdecisionsfollowthespiritofhisAwardand,inaddition,thelegislaturehasattempted todealwiththis'issue'viasuchinitiativesas'Bill168.' 53.TheprinciplearticulatedabovehasbeenfollowedinanumberofArbitrationAwards,including ArbitratorReilly'sdecision,citedabove,andArbitratorLuborsky'sdecisionintaraOperations Ltd.andTeamstersChemicalEnergyandAlliedWorkersUnion,Local647,141LAC4th.Itisa subjectivestandardandhascontinuedtoevolvesincetheSupremeCourtofCanada'sdecision inJanzenv.PlatyEnterprlsesLtd.[1989]1S,C.R.1252,59DLR,4th352. 54.InthemattersplacedbeforeArbitratorReillyandsubsequently,myself,onecannotidentifya patternof"repetitive,unwelcomeandoffensivebehaviour."ThemajorityoftheGrievor's allegationsaroseoutofsituationswhereattemptsweremadebytheEmployertoaddress certainwork'deficits'oftheGrievor.Theremainderwasrelatedtocommentsmadebya memberormembersofthemanagementteamwhichtheGrievortookoffenseto.Itshouldbe notedthatonesuchcommentwasnotmadedirectlytotheGrievor;insteadtheremarkwas passedontotheGrievorbyaco-worker.Nevertheless,theseremarkswereunfortunate,oras ArbitratorReillydescribedtheminhisnotes"inverypoortaste". 55.However,thereisnofindingthattheytoconstitute'harassment'asdefinedbythearbitral jurisprudence. 56.TheEmployer,particularlyintheformofAshbourne,LiehmanandHoganarechargedwiththe responsibilityofensuringthattheworkplacefunctionsaseffectivelyandefficientlyaspossible. ThisiscriticalgiventhenatureoftheworkandtherequirementtoadheretocertainProvincial statutesandregulations.Tothateffecttheywererequiredtorespondwhen,forexample,the Grievor'stimeawayfromthecampusexceededtheappropriateamountoftime.Itwaswithin theirmanagerialprerogativetoattempttocorrecttheconductoftheGrievorandthisis preciselywhattheydid.Thiscannotbeinanywaybedescribedas'harassment'.IftheGrievor feltthattheresponseofmanagementbroughtridiculeorembarrassmentuponhimthatis merelyaperceptionofhisandnotsomethingthatwas'imposed'uponhim. 57.ThesamecanbesaidwithrespecttotheallegationsthattheGrievorwasdeniedapromotion andwasalsonotaccommodated.Tobeblunt,thereisnoevidencetosupportathird-party's findingofharassment. 58.ItisclearlyevidentthattheGrievorholdslittlerespectfortheworkperformedbythe Employer'smanagerialgroup.ThiswasaviewstronglyheldbyArbitratorReilly.Itisfurther clearthattheEmployerhasbeenmadeawareofhisviewsonanumberofoccasions.The Grievorthereforemustbesaidtohavebeentheauthorofhisownmisfortunebyvirtueofhis behaviour. 59.AsaresultitisfoundthattheGrievorhasnotbeenharassedwithrespecttotheissuesofjob promotion,workplaceaccommodationandparentalleave. 60.IturnnowtotheallegationsthattheGrievorhasbeenharassedbywayofcommentsmadeby orattributedtocertainmembersofthemanagerialstaff.Thecomments,particularlythose madebyGedneywereinverypoortasteandinappropriate.Thatsaiditwasundisputedthat GedneylaterapologizedfortheremarkabouttheGrievorandotheremployeesbeing 'breeders'.Asunfortunateandinappropriateastheseremarksweretheydonotconstitute harassment. 61.Therefore,inconclusionitisfoundbasedonthetotalityoftheevidencethattheGrievordidnot experienceharassmentasalleged.Theevidencedemonstratesthatthebehaviourofthe EmployerisnotwhatwouldmeetthesubjectivetestasarticulatedbyArbitratorsKilgour, Luborsky,andReillyetal.Asaresult,thisaspectofthegrievanceisdismissedinitsentiretyand, ofcourse,allremediessoughtaredenied. DETERMINATIONRE:EMPLOYERSALLEGEDVIOLATIONOFTHEONTARIOLABOURRELATIONACT. 62. Thisparticularissueiscertainlylesscontroversialthanthatwhichhasbeendescribedabove. Thisislargelysobecause,onthelastdayofthehearingofevidence,January26,2011,Ms.Shari Whitman,admittedunderoaththatshehadmadestatementstotheGrievortotheeffectthat hisroleasaUnionrepresentativewasimpactinguponhisworkand,moreimportantly,he shouldconsider'cuttingback'onhisUnionactivity. Ms.Whitmanwasquitecandidinadmittingtothesestatements.Theyemergedduringher examination,andshealsoshowedremorseaboutmakingthem.Shehassincevoluntarilymoved ontoapositionwithanotherEmployer. 63. AsaresultImakeafindingthatthestatementsmadebyMs.Whitmananddirectedtothe GrievordoconstituteaviolationoftheprotectionsaffordedhimbytheCollectiveAgreement andtheOntarioLabourRelationsActasaUnionrepresentative.Thequestionthenbecomes, whatistheappropriateremedy? 64.InthisinstancebothIandArbitratorReillyareoftheviewthattheonlyappropriateremedyisa declarationthattheGrievor'srightshavebeenviolated.WhileanyfindingthataUnion representativehasbeenthreatenedintimidatedorotherwisechallengedwithrespecttotheir roleassuchisaseriousone,whathasoccurredhereleansonthelowendofsuchaviolation. 65. Therefore,itisfoundandsodeclaredthattheEmployerdidviolatetheGrievor'srightsunder theCollectiveAgreementandtheOntarioLabourRelationsActwithrespecttohisroleasa Unionrepresentative.That,however,istheonlyremedytobeprovidedtotheGrievorinthis instance. CONCLUSION 66. AsInotedintheinitialparagraphofthisAwardthishasindeedtakenanunusualpath.Itbas consumedanextraordinarilylengthoftimeandvaluableresourcesinaworkplacenotblessed withanabundanceofextramoniesorperson-power.Thatsaiditisimportantforanumberof reasonsthattheseissuesbedealtwithand,hopefully,broughttoaconclusion. 67.MyfindingsarticulatedinthisAwardareconsistentwiththosethatArbitratorReillyintendedto describehadhebeenabletoissuethisfinalAward.Thisincludesthefindingdismissingall aspectsoftheallegedhumanrightsviolationsandthefindingthattheEmployerhadcommitted anunfairlabourpracticewithrespecttostatementsmadebyMs.Whitmanquestioningthe Grievor'sroleasaUnionrepresentative. 68.Iremainseizedwithrespecttoanyquestionsthatmightarisewithrespecttotheinterpretation orimplementationofthisAward. 69.InclosingIwishtothankCounselforboththeUnionandtheEmployerfortheirkindassistance inconcludingthismatterandforthepatiencethattheyhavedemonstratedintheissuingofthis Award. Datedthis1stdayofOctober,20il,intheCityofToronto,Ontario. BrendanJ.Morgan-Mediator/Arbitrator