Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRichards 08-02-1213EC232011I RIEVANCE_DEPARTMENT INTHEMATTEROFANARBITRATION BETWEEN UNIVERSITYHEALTHNETWORK ("theHospital"/"tileEmployer") -AND ONTARIOPUBLICSERVICEEMPLOYEESUNION ("theUnion") CONCERNINGTHEINDIVIDUALGRIEVANCESofDORRELRICHARDS ("theGrievor") ChristopherAlbertyn-SoleArbitrator APPEARANCES FortheUnion: VeenaVenna,Counsel,CavalluzzoHayesShiltonMelnlyre&CornishLLP JanetBorowy,Student-at-law,CavalluzzoHayesShiltonMcIntyre&CornishLLP DorrelRichards,theGrievor MaryEllenCaffey,OPSEURepresentative StaeeyZafiriadis,OPSEUGrievanceOfficer FortheHospital: BrianO'Byrne,Counsel,FaskenMartineauDuMoulin StuartNeilson,CorporateManager,LabourRelations RichardMendonca,ManagerEmployeeRelations RachelPeters,FormerManager,Pathology(retired) CarolynVanKessel,LabourRelationsConsultant HearingheldinTORONTOonJune20,September17,November12and27,andDecember 19,2007. AwardissuedonFebruary12,2008. 1 PRELIMINARYAWARD 1.Thiscaseconcernstwogrievances:agrievanceofJanuary11,2007,in whichtheGrievorchallengesthefairnessofherdischargethatday;anda grievanceofNovember22,2005,inwhichtheGrievorclaimsharassmentbythe Employer.ThepartiesagreeIhavejurisdictionoverbothgrievances. 2.Thisawardconcernsthreepreliminarymatters:whethersurveillance evidenceobtainedbytheHospital,whichledtotheGrievor'sdismissal,willbe admitted;thescopeoftheGrievor'sharassmentgrievance;andwhetherIcan,and should,assumeexclusivejurisdictionovertheGrievor'scomplainttotheHuman RightsCommissionundertheHumanRightsCode. 3.TheUnionopposestileadmissionofthesurveillanceevidence.The HospitalchallengesthescopeoftheharassmentevidencetheUnionwishesto address.TheHospitalsuggestsIshouldassumeexclusivejurisdictionforthe Grievor'shumanrightscomplaint. Tilesurveillanceevidence 2 4.AlthoughtheHospitalwouldprefermetofollowfilerelevanceapproach totheadmissibilityofsm'veitlanceevidence,itrecognizesthatIhavepreviously issuedanawardonthetopic,inwhichIfollowedthereasonablenessapproach. 5.Therehasbeenmuchdiscussioninthearbitraljurisprudenceonwhatis requiredtojustifythesurveillanceofemployees2.Itakefromthesecasesthe requirementsthatthedecisiontodosomustbereasonable,andthesurveillance mustbeconductedinareasonablemanner. 6.TwowitnessestestifiedfortheHospital,RachelPetersandLisaMurphy. TheGrievordidnottestify.AsaconsequencetheevidenceofthetwoHospital witnessesislargelyuncontested.Theywerealsoapparentlycrediblewitnesses. 1Centenao,HealthCentreandC.U.O.E.(Ahhoealia)(Re)(1999),77L.A.C.(4h)436(Albertyn).2Seethefollowingcasesreferredtobytheparties(andthecasesreferredtotherein):Centenao, lIealthCentre,above;PrestressedSystentshw.andL.LU.N.A.,Loc.625(Roberts)(Re)(2005),137L.A.C.(4ta)193(Lynk);TorontoTransitComnlissionandA.T.U.,Loc.113(Adams),Re(1997),61L.A.C.(4th)218(Saltman);Sabourhlv.HouseofCommons,[2006]C.P.S.L.R.B.No.35;CentreforthAddiction andMentalHealthandO.P.S.E.U.(2004)131L.A.C.(4)97(Nairn);TorontoTransitthComnlission andA.7U.,Loe.113(Belsito)(Re)(1999),95L.A.C.(4)402(Chapman);Alberta•thB heatPoolandGrain1orkers"Union,Loc.333,Re(1995),48L.A.C.(4)332(Williams);Ebeo MetalFinishhlgLtd.andLA.B.S.R.L,Shopntens'Loc.712(Re)(2004),134L.A.C.(4th)372(Blasina);EnwblUtilitiesLtd.and1.B.E.B(,Loc.636ricol)(Re)(2003),114L.A.C.(4th)421(Brandt). 3 7.Ms.Peters,nowretired,wasthemanagerofthepathologydepartmentof theHospitalatthetime.Shetoldofhowshecametothedecisiontorequirethe Hospital'ssecuritydepartmenttoarrangefortheGrievor'ssurveillance.Lisa Murphy,aHmnanResourcesmanager,wasconsultedbyMs.Peters.Shetestified ofwhatmotivatedheradvicetoMs.Petersthatshewasjustifiedtoinitiatethe surveillance. 8.TheGrievorwasemployedbytheHospitalfromFebruary1990.Atthe timeofhertermination,whenshehadnearly17yearsservice,shewasa Technician3workinginthepathologydepartmentattheHospital.Herposition rotatedbetweenthelaboratoriesoftwodifferentsites:TorontoGeneralHospital ("TGH")andPrincessMargaretHospital("PMH"). 9.Thebackgroundtothesurveillancedecisionisasfollows.TheGrievor wentoffworkonsickleaveinApril2006.ShewastoreturntoworkinAugust 2006toherworkatPMH.Beforereturning,shewasrequiredtoundergoahealth assessmentbyanOccupationalHealthphysician.WhentheGrievorfailedto attendanappointmentonAugust9,2006,Ms.Petersarrangedanother appointmentforAugust23,2006.Thereportofthephysicianwasnecessaryto ensurethattheGrievorwasfittoreturntowork. 4 10.Inaddition,theGrievorwasprovidedbytheHospital'sOccupational Healthunitwithjobdescriptionsofherwork,onwhichsheindicatedthework shouldcould,andcouldnotdo.SheindicatedshehadnoproblemsatthePMH site.Herentryonthedescriptionswas"transportationofspec.[specimens]fi'mn PMHtoTGH(tobediscussedwithunion)".Otherwisetherewerenoentries. 11.TherewasamisleadingentrymadebytheGrievorwhenshewastoreturn towork.SheadvisedthedisabilitycoordinatoroftheOccupationalHealthunit thatshehadnotworkedattheTGHsiteforovertwoyears.Thiswasnotaccurate. ShedidthispresumablytosecureamorepermanentpositionforherselfatPMH. Ms.PetershadtocorrecttheOccupationalHealthrecordbypointingoutthatthe Grievor'sregularworkwasarotationbetweenthePMHandTGHsites. 12.Ms.PeterswasadvisedbyOccupationalHealththattherewereno restrictionsontheGrievor'sreturntowork. 13.UponherreturntoworkatPMH,onrotation,asiscustomaryafteralong absencefromwork,theGrievorwassubjecttoaninitial"hardening"processto adjusthertoherfull-timeworkinghours.Shestartedworkingfor4hoursaday. 5 Thisthenincreasedto6hoursaday,untilshecouldworkthefullshiftfrom9am to5pm.AsfarasMs.Peterswasaware,theGrievorhadnorestrictionsonwhat shecoulddo.Shewasnotrequiredtoattendphysiotherapy. 14.Infact,documentsproducedatthehearingfromtheOccupationalHealth unitsuggestthat,whenfueGrievorreturnedtowork,therewasamodifiedwox requirementthatshenotraiseherleftarmabovehershoulder.Thiswasnot conmmnicatedtoMs.Petersatthetime,soshewasnotawareofit,nordoesit appearthattheGfievorassertedit,whentheGfievorreturnedtowork. Accordingly,theGrievorworkedwithoutdifficultyorrestrictionatPMHinthe periodAugusttoearlyOctober2006. 15.EmployeeattendanceisreviewedbytheHospitalat6-monthlyintervals. UndertheHospital'sattendancemanagementsystem,anemployeewithpoor attendanceprogresseswithcontinuingpoorattendancetohigherlevelsof interventionuntil,atlevel7,theyareterminatedforpoorattendance. 16.OnOctober2,2006,Ms.PetersmetwiththeGrievorandissuedhera letterconcerningherattendance.AtthemeetingMs.PeterstoldtheGrievorthat shewasbeingelevatedtolevel6,theleveljustbelowtermination,asa 6 consequenceofhercontinuingpoorattendancerecord.Toreachlevel6requires consistentlypoorattendancebyanemployeeforaperiodofatleast3years.Ms. PeterstoldtheGrievorthatshewouldbeterminatedifherattendancedidnot improveandifshereachedlevel7. 17.TheGrievor'srotationrequiredthatshereturntoTGHinOctober2006. SheprefelxedworkingatPMH.TheGfievorcametoMs.PetersonOctober3, 2006andaskedifshecouldremainatPMH.Ms.Peterssaidthatshecouldnot; shehadtobepartoftherotation,likeotherpathologytechnicians.TheGrievor theninquiredwhattheHospitalwasdoingaboutheracconnnodation.Ms.Peters saidsheknewofnorestrictionsthatneededaccommodationandthat,ifthere wereany,theGrievorwouldneedtoproduceamedicalletterconfirmingit. 18.TheGrievortheninformedMs.Petersthatshehadtogotophysiofllerapy appointments,twiceaweek,onMondaysandWednesdays,andshewouldneed timeofftogettherebecausetheappointmentswereattheLawrenceEast RehabilitationClinicinScarboroughat4pro.TheGrievortoldMs.Petersshehad toleaveby3pmtogettoherappointment.Ms.PetersgrantedtheGrievorunpaid leaveofabsencebetween3pro-5protwodaysaweek,MondayandWednesday, sothatshecouldgoforherphysiotherapyappointments. 7 19.UponreturningtotheTGHsitetheGrievorindicatedshecouldnotdo certainliftingandshecouldnotreachthebasketsonthetopshelvesbecausethey weretoohigh. 20.Ms.PeterswasabittakenabackbythedifferencebetweentheGrievor beingabletoworkwithoutrestrictionatPMH,butbeingunabletoreachthetop shelvesatTGH.Ms.PetersaskedOccupationalHealthtodoaworkplaceanalysis tocomparetheGfievor'sworkplacesatthePMHandTGHsites.Ms.Peterswas interestedtodeterminethedifferencesattheTGHsitethatpreventedtheGrievor fi'omreachingtheshelvesthere. 21.ThereportfromOccupationalHealthindicatedfllattheshelvesthe Grievorhadreached,withoutapparentdifficulty,atthePMHsitewereactually higherthanthoseatherworksiteatTGH.ThissuggestedtoMs.Petersthatthe Grievor'sconcernswerenotgenuine. 22.TheGrievor'srotationtoTGHendedandshereturnedtoPMH.Ms. Peters'concernregardingthegenuinenessoftbeGrievor'scontinued physiotherapygrewoncetheGrievorreturnedtoPMH.Asbeforewhenthe 8 GrievorworkedatPMH,shehadnodifficultyreachingtothebasketsthere, whichwereonshelveshigherthanthoseatTGH.ShecoulddoherworkatPMH apparentlywithoutdifficulty.Yet,despitetheGrievornotneedingphysiotherapy whenshelastworkedatPMHonherpreviousrotation,herphysiotherapy absences,fortwohourstwiceaweek,continued. 23.TheGrievor'sphysiotherapytreatmentwasuninten'uptedfromearly October2006untilthesurveillancewasinitiatedinDecember2006.Bythetime Ms.PetersdecidedtotestthegenuinenessoftheGrievor'sattending physiotherapyshehadattended16two-hoursessions. 24.Ms.PetersheardrumoursinherdepartmentthattheGrievorwasnot attendingphysiotherapy,butwasattendingclassesatRyersonUniversityinstead. Ms.PetersdidnotraisethematterwiththeGrievorbeforedecidingtoinitiatethe surveillance.Ms.Petersleftamessagetofindoutfi'omRyersonwhetherthe Grievorwasregisteredthereasastudent,butshereceivednoresponsetoher inquiry.Shedidnotpursuethematterbecansesherealizedshewouldhaveto obtaintheGrievor'sconsenttoanydisclosureofstudentregistrationfrom RyersonandshedidnotwanttodiscussthesuspicionwiththeGrievor. 9 25.ThecombinationofthisinformationwastheimmediatecauseofMs. PetersdecidingtoinitiatesurveillanceoftheGrievoronanoccasionwhenshe wasmeanttobeatphysiotherapy. 26.UnioncounselputtoMs.PeterswhyshedidnotasktheGfievorabouther suspicionthattheGrievorwasnotattendingherphysiotherapy,andwhyshedid notobtainareportfromthephysiotherapistthattheGrievorwasattending. 27.Ms.Petersexplainedshewasconcernedthat,ifshedidapproachthe Gfievorandquerywhethershewasactuallyattendingphysiotherapy,theGrievor wouldlikelyclaimtheinquirywasharassmentanddiscriminationongroundsof disability.TheGrievorhad,bythen,madecmnplaintsofharassmentand discriminationagainstMs.Peters,ingrievancesandotherwise,andMs.Petersdid notwanttoprovokethatresponse. 28.Ms.PetersdidnotaskthephysiotherapyclinicwhethertheGrievorwas attendingbecausethatwouldhaverequiredtheGrievor'sconsent.Ms.Peterswas concernedthat,ifsheaskedtheGrievorforsuchconsent,shemightreceivea grievancecomplainingofharassmentanddiscrimination. l0 29.Ms.Peters'priorexperienceoftheGrievordidnothingtoassuageher suspicions.(Indescribingwhatfollows,IrecordMs.Peters'accountofevents.I amdescribingwbatmotivatedhertoinitiatethesurveillance.Iamnotmaking factualconclusionsregardingtheGrievor'spriorconduct.Theinvestigationof whatoccun'edbetweenMs.PetersandtheGrievorwillbethesubjectofthe grievances.Atthisstage,IamconcernedonlybywhatmotivatedMs.Peters,not bywhetherherimpressionsareaccurate.Thatwillbeforlaterdetermination.) 30.AccordingtoMs.Peters,theGrievorhadnotalwaysbeenforthrightwith her.TheGrievorhadclaimeddisabilityinthepastwhenthereweretasksshedid notwanttoperform.Ms.PetersrecallstheGrievorhadkneeproblemswhenshe didnotwanttochangethere-agentsonthetissueprocess,shehadarmandknee problemswhenshewasaskedtotransportspecimensfromTGHtoPMH,andshe hadanarmproblematPMHwhenshehadtotakespecimenstospecimen handlingatTGH.TheseinstancesledMs.PeterstobelievethattheGrievor wouldtakeadvantageofallegeddisabilitytoavoidworkresponsibility.This impressionfedintothesuspicionMs.Petershadofthegenuinenessofthe Grievor'sphysiotherapybyDecember2006. 31.Beforeinitiatingthesurveillance,Ms.Petersdecidedtocheckwiththe 11 HumanResourcesdepartmentwhethershewasentitledtoinitiatesurveillanceof theGrievor.ShewenttoMs.Mmphy,aHumanResourcesManager,toinquiry whethershecouldan'angeforsurveillanceoftheGfievor'svisittophysiotherapy. SheexplainedhersuspicionsoffileGrievorandsheandMs.Murphydiscussed thematter.Ms.MurphyfeltthatMs.Petershadsufficientjustificationtowan'ant herarrangingforsurveillanceoftheGrievor.Ms.Murphycheckedwiththe DirectorofHumanResources,andhetooconfinnedthathethoughtsurveillance wasappropriate. 32.Ms.MurphyhadherownsuspicionsregardingtheGrievor's physiotherapyneeds.Thesewereinformedbytwoincidents.First,whenthe Grievorhadaskedforvacationanditwasde,tied,shecalledinsick.Second,the Grievorwasexcusedfromtransportingspecimensfromtheonehospitalsitetothe otherbecausesheallegedlyhadmobilityissues,but,inMs.Murphy'sopinion,at theholidaypartyforthepathologydepartment,theGrievorhaddancedasifshe hadnomobilityissues. 33.Ms.Murphy'sandMs.Peters'suspicionsregardingthegenuinenessofthe Grievor'sphysiotherapysessionwasfuelledtoobytheGrievor'spoorattendance record.TheythoughtthatthepossibilityoftheGfievormisusingthetimeshehad 12 offforphysiotherapytreatmentwouldbeconsistentwithherpoorattendance record. 34.OnceMs.PeterswasgivenMs.Murphy'simprimatur,shecontactedthe Hospital'ssecuritywhicharrangedforaprivateinvestigatortofollowtheGfievor onanoccasionwhensheoughttohavebeenatphysiotherapy.Thesurveillance tookplaceonWednesday,December6,2006. 35.Iunderstandthattheinvestigator'sreportclaimsthattheGrievordidnot attendphysiotherapythatday. 36.Asaconsequenceoftheinvestigator'sreport,followingameetingwith theGrievoratwhichshewasgivenanopportunitytoexplainherfailuretoattend physiotherapy,theGrievorwasterminatedonJanuary11,2007.Shewas terminatedbecause,accordingtotheHospital,herconductfellwithinthe provisionsofArticle12.09(e)ofthecollectiveagreement,adeemedtermination provision.Itprovidesthatifanemployeeusesaleaveofabsence,without permission,forapurposeotherthanthatforwhichtheleavewasgranted,they willbedeemedterminated. 13 37.TheGrievoradmitsthatshedidnotattendphysiotherapyoilDecember6, 2006.Sherecallsthat,whileintransittoherappointment,shecalledher physiotherapistandfoundtheappointmentwascancelled.Giventhatshewas alreadyonroute,itdidnotmakesensetoreturntowoikand,asthephysiotherapy wasanunpaidleaveofabsence,shefeltfllerewasnoneedtoreporttothe Employerthattheappointmentwascancelled. 38.Unioncounselcontendstherewerelessintrusivemethodstodetermine whethertheGrievorwasattendingherphysiotherapysessions.Counselpointsout that,whentheGrievorwasgivenleavetoattendphysiotherapy,sheproduceda letterfromthephysiotherapist,indicatingthatshewasrequiredtoattendtwicea week.Counselsuggeststhesamecouldhavebeendonetodetermineifthe Gfievormaintainedherattendance. 39.Further,UnioncounselsaysthatMs.Petershad11oexpertisetodecideon areasonableperiodofphysiotherapytreatment.Shecouldreadilyhavemade inquiriesofOccupationalHealthwhowouldhavegivenherreliableinformation. CounselsuggeststhatMs.Peters'decisiontoobtainsurveillanceoftheGrievor, andtoviolateherrightstoprivacy,wassubjective,anddoesnotmeetthe reasonablenessstandard. 14 40.UnioncounselmakesthepointsthatneitherMs.PetersnorMs.Murphyis trainedinoccupationalhealth;neithertookadvicefromtheHospital's OccupationalHealthunitonthereasonablenessofthelengthoftheGrievor's physiotherapytreatment;andneitherisaphysiotherapistorhasprofessional knowledgeofphysiotherapy.Asaresult,theirassessmentofhowlongthe Grievor'sphysiotherapyshouldhavelastedwassubjectiveandinherently um'eliable. 41.Thepropercontextforevaluatingthereasonablenessofthedecisionto undertakethesurveillanceisnottheidealcircmnstaneeinwhichnostoneisleft unturned.Everyaspectofthemotivationneednotbeperfectandyetthedecision maybereasonable.Thequestionisoneofweight.Ineverycontextinwhicha smazeillancedecisionismade,therewillbesomethingstheemployerfailedto thinkabout,therewillbesomecheckorsomeinformationwhichcouldusefully havebeenobtainedinadvance,whichtheemployerfailedtoobtain.Hindsight andskilfuladvocacywillshowwhatmorecouldhavebeendone.Agaphereor therewillnotnecessarilybefatal,though,tothereasonablenessofthedecision. Detenniningthereasonablenessrequiresmakingadecisionastowhether,taken overallwiththetackofinformationthatmighthavebeenobtained,andwiththe 15 infolanationthatwasavailableandwasobtained,wastheemployercavalier, capricious,arbitraryorcarelessinarrivingatthedecisiontoinitiatesurveillance. If,takenoverall,despitetheflawsintheinfomlationtheemployerhad,the employercanshowitselftohavebeenbonafide,thoughtfidandcarefulin arrivingatthedecision,andtohavehadsubstantivegroundsforsuspicion,the surveillancewillbereasonable. 42.Thereasonablenessstandardappliesbecausethemutualrespectof managementandemployeesrequiresthatanemployeebegiventhebenefitofthe doubtuntiltheemployeehasgivensomereasonablecausefortheemployerto believe(possiblyeixoneously)thattheemployeeischeating,takingadvantageof thesituationandobtainingabenefitthatisnotjustified. 43.AsUnioncounselargues,thegeneralrightofanemployeetosomedegree &privacyatworkhasbeenrecognizedinthearbitraljurisprudence:Prestressed Systemsbin.,above,atp.209.Therightisjustifiablybreachedonlyifthereis reasonablecausefordoingso. 44.UnioncounselreferstoacommentinPrestressedSystemshw.,above,at p.21O,amongthelistoffactorsthatarepartofthereasonablenesstest.Ifthe 16 employerhasnotshownthatallotherpossibilitieswereexhaustedbeforeturning tosurveillance,theemployerwillhavetoexplainwhy"somereadilyavailable andlessintrusivemethodscouldnothaveaccomplishedthesamegoal." 45.Inthisease,Ms.Petersexplainedwhyshedidnotfollowthealternative routessuggestedtoherbyUnioncounsel.Shethoughtofthealternativesto surveillance,butsheeithercouldnotaccomplishthem,orsherejectedthem becauseofherconcernatfacinganotherharassmentcomplaint. 46.TherewasalonghistoryofsuspicionbetweenMs.PetersandtheGfievor. Whetherthatwastheconsequenceofharassmentanddiscriminationasthe Grievoralleges,orwhetheritwastheresultoftheGrievor'sconductoverthe yearsastheHospitalmaintains,oracombinationofboth,remainstobeseen. Thosearemattersforthemaincaseonthemerits.Thathistory,though,withthe eventsbetweenAugustandDecember2006,informedMs.Peters'decisionto proceedwiththesurveillance. 47.inPrestressedSystemshie.,above,atp.214,ArbitratorLynkrefersthe absenceofabackgroundofdoubtfulpreviousrequestsforleavebyanemployee, 17 andotherindicationsofalackofcooperationbytheemployee3.OnMs.Peters' andMs.Murphy'sevidence(sofaruntestedonthemeritsofthemaincase),the Grievorwasanuncooperativeemployeewhohadnotbeenforthright,andhadon occasionbeenmisleadingintheinformationsheprovidedtheHospital.The backgroundgavecauseforMs.Peters'suspicion. 48.Iunderstandthatthesurveillancewasundertakenonlyinpublicplaces andduringthehourswhentheGrievorwouldhavebeenatwork,hadshenothad theleaveofabsence.Thereisnosuggestionthatthemethodusedwasinvasiveof theGrievor'sprivacy. 49.ThequestioninthiscaseiswhethertheGrievorhadgivensufficientcause forMs.PetersreasonablytocometotheconclusionthattheGrievorwastaking unjustifiedadvantageofherleavetoattendphysiotherapy.HereMs.Petershada legitimateconcernthattheGrievorwasusingthespecialleaveshehadbeen grantedforthepurposeotherthanthatforwhichitwasintended.Ifind,despite somedeficiencies,thatMs.Petershadreasonablecauseforherdecisiontouse surveillance.AsEmployercounselsubmits,Ms.Peterswasnotactingonawhim. Fromherperspective,theGrievorhadbeenduplicitousinthepast,herattendance 3SeealsoTTC(Saltman),above,p.222. !8 recordwasbad,sheappearednottohaveneededphysiotherapywhensheworked previouslyatPMH,therewerenorestrictionsonwhattheGrievorcoulddoat workyetthephysiotherapyhadgoneonformanyweeks,and,hadMs.Peters askedtheGrievorforconsenttocheckonhercontinuingneedforphysiotherapy, shethoughtshemightfaceanotherharassmentcomplaint.Takentogether,there wasenoughforhertodoubttheveracityoftheGrievor'scontinuingvisitsto physiotherapy,weekafterweek,andtowarrantundertakingachecktoseeifher suspicionswerejustified. 50.IthereforedenytheUnion'sobjectiontotheadmissionofthesurveillance evidence. Thescopeoftheharassmentgrievance 51.Theissueconcernsthetemporalscopeofthegrievance. 52.TheGrievorclaimstohavebeenharassedbytheHospitalmanagement anddiscriminatedagainst.HerharassmentgrievanceofNovember22,2005refers totherequirementbymanagementthattheGrievorprovidemedicalstatementsto 19 theHospital'sOccupationalHealthwithintimelimitsshethoughttooshort.The grievancecomplainsthattheGrievorisfeelingforcedtobeatworkwhensheis sick.Thereliefsoughtincludes:removalofthreelettersofwarningfromherfile: aletterrelatedtoabsencereportingobligations,aletterrelatedtomedicalillness submittedtoOccupationalHealth,andaletterrelatedtoinsubordinationandthe Hospital'sCodeofConduct;creationofanenviromnentfreefromharassmentand discrimination;andcompensationforharassmentandongoingdiscrimination. 53.UnioncounselparticularizedtheGrievor'sharassmentcomplaintina letterdatedAugust23,2007.IntheHospital'ssubmission,thegrievancewas massivelyexpandedinthisletter,goingbacktoincidentsapproximately9years priortotheGrievor'stermination.Amongtheincidentsdescribed,manywerethe subjectofgrievanceswhichwereresolved,withdrawnorabandoned.Employer counselsaystheGrievorshouldnotbepermittedtodredgeupissueslongsince disposedof. 54.TheEmployerparticularlyobjectstobeingrequiredtocalltheevidenceof personsnolongerinitsemploy,withwhomitlongsincepartedcompany,who wouldberequiredtotestifyiftheGrievor'sclaims,back9yearsorso,were admittedinevidence. 20 55.TheGrievorseesherterminationasthecuhninationofthislongperiodof harassmentanddiscrimination,asparticularizedinUnioncounsel'sletter.In Unioncounsel'ssubmission,Ineedtohearthefullaccountandbackgroundtothe circumstancesgivingrisetotheGrievor'stermination.Thelonghistoryof harassmentanddiscriminationshowsapatternthatisrelevanttothe determinationofwhethertheGrievorwasvictimizedandwhetherhertermination wasforjustcause.TheUnionreliesonArticle5,theNoDiscriminationor Harassmentprovisionofthecollectiveagreement. 56.TheHospitalobjectstotheharassmentgrievancegoingbackmorethan6 monthspriortotheGrievorfilingherNovember22,2005harassmentgrievance. Itclaimsprejudiceifherclaimisallowedtogobackbeyond6months,theperiod allowedbytheHumanRightsCommissionforconsiderationofacomplaintunder theHmnanRightsCode. 57.Hospitalcounselreferstotheprovisionsofthecollectiveagreement. Grievancesaretobefiledanddealtwithpromptly,underArticle10.03(1).Any unresolvedgrievancenotpursuedtoarbitration(andsomeoftheGrievor'searlier unresolvedgrievanceswerenotpursuedtoarbitration)isdeemedabandoned, 21 underArticle10.08.UnderArticle10.16,thetimelimitsaremandatoryandnon compliancewiththemdeemsthegrievancetohavebeenabandoned.Thetenorof Article10-TheGrievanceandArbitrationProcedure-isspeedyandexpeditious resolutionofgrievances.Theemployeehasanobligationtobringgrievancesto theattentionofmanagementpromptly,andboththeUnionandtheHospitalare requiredtodealwiththegrievancesexpeditiously.InEmployercounsel's submission,allowingalitanyofcomplaintgoingbackmanyyearstobeailedin thiscaserunscountertotheserequirements. 58.TheUnionclaimsthatfromFebruary2005theGrievorwasdiscriminated againstbybeingmicro-managedandbeingrequiredtoreporttohermanager, ratherthanhersupervisor,forherattendancemanagement.IftheGrievorwereoff forasingledayshewouldhavetoproduceanattendingphysician'sstatement within48hours.This,theUnionclaims,wasnotappliedtootheremployees,nor wasitconsistentwiththeHospital'spolicies.TheGrievorfoundthistobe onerousandstressful.Shefeltshewasbeingsingledoutandpunishedforbeing ill. 59.Unioncounselreferstos.10oftheHumanRightsCode,whichdefines harassmentas"engaginginacourseofvexatiousconunentorconductthatis 22 knownoroughtreasonablytobeknowntobeunwelcome".Counselsuggeststhat Iwillneedtolookatacourseofconduct,notmerelytheoutcomeofthatconduct. 60.TheUnionelailnstheHospitalrefusedtoaccepttheGrievor'sdoctor's lettersasvalidproofofillness.Itclaimsalsothatshewasdeniedupgrading opportunitiesasamicro-biologist.Shewasdeniedcross-trainingwhenothers weregiventhistrainingandshewasoverlookedforseveraljobpostings.The Grievorbelievesthesewereinstancesofdiscriminationagainsther.TheGrievor claimsthatherphysicalailmentswereattributabletohermaltreatmentbythe Hospitalmanagement. 61.UnioncounselrefersmetothedecisionsinCanadaPostColT.and CU.P.l(Raclo,Grievance),[1997]C.L.A.D.No.156(P.Piche0;Hotel-Dieu GraceHospitalandO.N.A.(BemtetO(Re)[1997),62L.A.C.(4th)164(M. Picher).Iadopttheapproachsetouttherein.TheGrievor'sharassmentand discriminationgrievanceisacontinuinggrievance,withabackgroundthat requiresairing. 62.Ms.PetersstartedworkattheTorontoGeneralhospitalin2003,andshe wasmanagerofthepathologydepartment,inwhichtheGrievorwasworking,for 23 about4yearspriortotheGrievor'stermination. 63.Whatisrequired,Ithink,whendeterminingthescopeoftheharassment grievance,istogivetheGrievorafairopportunitytoshowthehistoryand backgroundtoherclaimsofharassmentanddiscrimination,leadingtoher termination,and,atthesametime,togivetheHospitalanopportunitytorespond tothateasewifllevidencethatisaccessible.Thehistoryshouldgobackfar enoughthatthecontextfortheGrievor'sclaimsillhergrievanceisproperly grounded,yetthehistorycannotgobacksofarthatwitnesses'recollectionswill havesofadedastobeoflittleprobativevalue.Afairbalanceneedstobestruck, aswassaidbyArbitratorM.PicherinHotel-DieuGraceHospital. 64.Inmyopinion,theappropriatebalancebetweenthecompeting considerationsisthefollowing.TheUnionmaypresentevidencegoingbackto thetimethatMs.Petersbecamemanagerofthepathologydepartmentandin chargeoftheGrievor.Thatisapproximately4yearspriortotheGrievor's termination.Itisaperiodfarlongerthanthe6monthsthatwouldnormallyapply inahumanrightscomplainttotheHumanRightsConunission.Itisconsistent withthenotionthattheConnnissionhasadiscretiontohearevidenceofevents priortothe6monthsifthereisareasonableexplanationforthedelay,ifthe 24 evidenceisrelevantinprovidingbackgroundandcontexttothecomplaint,andif therelativeprejudicefavoursdoingso:Nelsonv.DurhamBoardofEducation, [1997]O.H.R.B.I.D.,No.9;TolvntoTransitCommissionandA.T.U.,Loc.113 (Re)(1998),75L.A.C.(4h)180(Davie).Itisalsonotsotongaperiodoftime thatthewitnesses'recollectionswillhavesoperishedastobeoflittleprobative value.ItcoversthefullperiodoftheGrievor'sHumanRightscomplaint(in whichtheearliestincidentdescribedisApril2004),andsoenablesmetohearthe fullscopeofthatcomplaint. 65.Thisrulingissothatarguablyrelevantevidenceofthebackgroundtothe Grievor'shumanrightscomplaintscanbeprovided.Theevidencewillbesubject totheusualrulesconcerningrelevanceandadmissibility.Therulingdoesnot deprivetheHospitalofitsentitlement,iftheUnionissuccessful,torelyuponthe timelimitsandotherprovisionsinthecollectiveagreement,anysettlements reached,anyabandomnentorwithdrawalofgrievances,withrespecttoanyrelief thatmaybeaffordedtotheGrievor. JurisdictionovertheGrievor'scomplainttotheHumanRightsCommission 25 66.TheHospitalarguesthatIshouldassumeexclusivejurisdictionoverthe HumanRightsCodecomplaint.TheHospitalcontendsitwillbeprejudicedifitis requiredtodealwiththeGrievor'shumanrightscomplaintagainbeforethe HumanRightsConunission.Suchaduplicationofproceedingswillbewasteful andunnecessary.TheHospitalreliesonQuebec(C.D.P.D.J.)v.Quebec(A.G.), [2004]240D.L.R.(4th)577(S.C.C.). 67.InthatcasethequestionwaswhethertheQuebecHumanRightsTribunal shouldbebarredfi'omhearingacomplaintofdiscriminationbecausealabour arbitratorhadexclusivejurisdictionoverthedispute.TheSupremeCourtof CanadadecidedthattheTribunalretainedjurisdiction,andthatthearbitratordid nothaveexclusivejurisdiction.Atp.584,¶¶8-10,theCourtspokeofthree possibleoutcomes:concurrentjurisdiction;overlappingjurisdiction,and exclusivejurisdiction.Theanswerdepends"onthegoverninglegislation,as appliedtothedisputeviewedinitsfactualmatrix....Dependingonthe legislationandthenatureofthedispute,othertribunals[besidesalabour arbitrator]maypossessoverlappingjurisdiction,concurrentjurisdiction,or themselvesbeendowedwithexclusivejurisdiction"[p.585,¶11]. 26 68.TheCourtsuggestedtworelatedsteps:firstly,tolookattherelevant legislationandwhatitsaysaboutthearbitrator'sjurisdiction;secondly,tolookat theessentialcharacterandnatureofthedispute,andseewhetherthelegislation suggestsitfallsexclusivelytothearbitrator[p.586,¶15]. 69.LookingattheessentialcharacteroftheGrievor'shumanrights complaint,itinvolvestheGrievor'streatmentatworkbytheHospital's management.TheGrievorreliesonArticle5ofthecollectiveagreement,which eschewsdiscriminationandexpresslyincorporatestherighttofreedomfrom harassmentintheworkplaceinaccordancewiththeHumanRightsCode.The UnionisalliedininterestwiththeGrievor;itsupportstheGrievoranditis vigorouslypursuinghercaseforher.Thefactsinvolveonlyher,notaclassof individuals.Sheclaimsthatshepersonallywasharassedanddiscriminated againstbymanagement.Theprovisionsofthecollectiveagreementare particularlyinissueintheGrievor'sharassmentgrievance.Thenatureofthe questionsinherHumanRightsCodecolnplaintlendsitselftothecharacterization asagrievanceunderthecollectiveagreement,anditisforthisreasonthatIhave pelTnittedthefullscopeofthecomplainttoformpartoftheGrievor'sharassment anddiscriminationgrievance.Allofthissuggests,asHospitalcounselargueson thebasisoftheQuebecdecision,thatIhavejurisdictiontodealwiththematter, 27 andthatIshoulddosoexclusively. 70.Notwithstandingtheattractivenessofassumingexclusivejurisdictionsoas toavoidaduplicationofproceedings,Idonothavejurisdictiontodoso.Icannot ousttheHumanRightsCmmnissiono1"theHumanRightsTribunal.Whether thosebodieswishtoassumejurisdictionfortheGrievor'shumanrightscomplaint isforthemtodecide.TheHospitalwill,ofcourse,beatlibertytoarguebefore thoseforumsissueestoppel,resjudicata,theexerciseofdiscretionnottohearthe complaint,andthelike. 71.Therealeotherreasonsforthisconclusion,asUnioncounselpointsout. TheGrievorhasfiledherhumanrightscomplaintherself.TheUniondoesnot havecarriageofit.ShehascitedMs.Petersasarespondingparty,albeitinher capacityasthemanagerofthepathologydepamnent. 72.1amguidedbytheapproachoftheAlbertaCourtofAppealinCalgary (Cio)v.A.7U.,Loc.583(2007),161L.A.C.(4h)193(AlbertaCourtofAppeal), adecisionthatfollowedtheapproachoftheSupremeCourtofCanadainthe Quebeccase.AsUnioncounselargues,IcandecidewhetherIhavejurisdictionto heartheGrievor'shumanrightscomplaint.Ihavedecidedtodoso.Thescopeof 28 whatIwil!hearwillcoverthefullextentofherHmnanRightsCmmnission complaint.But,forthereasonsstatedinTheUniversityHealthNetwork(Toronto GeneralHospita0andO.N.A.(Vedd),(unreportedawardofMareotte,April9, 2007)atp.9,Icalmotassumeexclusivejurisdiction. 73.PursuanttotherulingIissuedatthehearingonDecember19,2007,the Employerwillcallitswitnessestojustifythedisciplineandterminationwhich informthetwogrievances.Inthecourseoftheevidenceofthosewitnesses, Unioncounselwillputtothosewitnesses,totheextenttheycanrespond,all issueswithinthescopeoftheharassmentcomplaintwhichformspartofthe grievances,undertherulingIhaveissuedherein. 74.TheEmployerisnotobligedtocallanticipatorywitnessesMlowouldnot otherwisetestifytothedisciplineorterminationmerelytodealwiththe harassmentissuesraisedbytheGrievor. 75.DuringtheGrievor'sandtheGrievor'switnessestestimonytheEmployer willputtothemsuchissuesitdisputesconcerningtheGrievor'sharassment 29 complaint.Totheextentitswitnesseshavenotaddressedtheissueinthe disciplineandterminationportionofthecase,theEmployermaythen,inreply, presentsuchevidencetosupportofwhatithasputtotheGrievorandthe Gfievor'switnesses. DATEDatTORONTOonFebruary12,2008. ChristopherJ.Albertyn Arbitrator