Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-1711.Rizzo.24-05-31 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# 2015-1711 UNION# 2015-0618-0013 See Attached Appendix C IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Rizzo) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services) Employer BEFORE Nimal Dissanayake Arbitrator FOR THE UNION Ed Holmes Ryder Wright Holmes Bryden Nam LLP Counsel FOR THE EMPLOYER Ferina Murji Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel HEARING June 2, 2023; September 15, and 26, 2023; October 20, 2023; December 12, 2023; January 17, 18 and 30, 2024; February 13, 15 28 and 29; 2024; March 26 and 27, 2024. -2 - Decision [1] This decision relates to multiple preliminary motions by the employer with respect to 36 individual grievances filed between July 15, 2015, and December 12, 2020, by Ms. Sonya Rizzo (“grievor”). Throughout this period, she was employed as a Youth Services Officer (YSO)at the Cecil Facer Youth Centre in Sudbury, Ontario. [2] The Board first convened on this matter on October 5, 2028, at which time it had only 5 grievances before it. Additional grievances were subsequently filed and referred to arbitration. The Board convened on May 22, 2019; September 10, 2021, and September 9, 2022, and all of the grievances were consolidated on agreement. On these days, the parties engaged in mediation and/or discussed hearing process issues. Then while preparing for arbitration the employer discovered 6 more grievances filed by the grievor, which had not been referred to arbitration. When this was brought to the attention of the union it referred those 6 grievances also to arbitration. With 36 grievances before the Board, employer counsel commenced submissions on its preliminary motions on June 2, 2023. She prepared a chart numbering the grievances 1 to 36 and setting out the preliminary objections raised against each grievance. There were over 100 preliminary motions of different types raised in total. Using that chart as a guide to assist the Board, she took up the grievances one by one from 1 to 36, and made submission on the preliminary objections raised against each of them. [3] After the employer counsel had completed submissions on all 36 grievances, union counsel advised the Board that the union was withdrawing 12 of the 36 grievances, namely those numbered 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28 and 29. This decision deals with the 24 grievances that remained. Employer counsel submitted that solely for the purposes of the various preliminary motions, the Board may accept that the facts asserted in the grievance statements and particulars are true. -3 - [4] Employer counsel pointed out that the vast majority of the grievances alleged that the employer had violated one or more of article 2 (Management Rights), article 3 (Discrimination) and article 9 (Health and Safety). It was a continuing story from 2015 to 2021 of the grievor being harassed/ bullied, and exposed to violence and unsafe poisoned work environment. The alleged misconduct was attributed to a number of different individuals including managers and co- workers. Counsel also pointed out that in the period July 2015 to December 2021, the grievor was not at work for approximately 58 months. Many of her grievances were filed while she was on extended leaves of absences due to illness or on WSIB. Counsel prepared a chart indicating the grievances filed when the grievor was not at work [5] The union’s particulars were set out in 239 paragraphs. It describes the grievor’s account of what she experienced at work from April 2014 to the end of August 2021, although the last of her 36 grievances was filed on December 12, 2020. [6] The Board was provided a chart setting out the days when the grievor was absent from work in the period covered by the particulars. It shows that in 2014 she was off sick on STSP from April 30 to November 6 and from March 30 to September 29, 2016. From September 30, 2016 to September 25, 2018, she was off on LTIP and returned to work on a graduated basis until October 21. Then she commenced a WSIB absence from November 26 to December 6, 2018, and returned to her YSO position on December 10, 2018. She commenced a WSIB absence again on February 13, 2019, and remained so until July 5, 2020. She returned to work on a graduated basis on July 6, 2020, until September 28, 2020. She again went on a WSIB absence from May 24, 2021, to July 18, 2021, when she returned on a graduated basis and was at work until October 3, 2021. Finally she went on a WSIB absence on November 24, 2021, following an incident with a youth, and had not returned to work as of the last day of hearing March 27, 2024. -4 - [7] Reviewing another chart, counsel pointed out that the particulars name at least 15 managers and Administrators. Allegations are made against many of them, including the grievor’s immediate supervisors. Similar allegations are levelled at numerous co-workers and WDHP and labour relations staff. Despite not being at the workplace for extended periods, she filed 36 grievances naming these managers and co-workers. Counsel submitted that what this demonstrates is that the grievor has experienced a lot of trauma while working as a YSO over the years, and has a heightened sensitivity, is very vulnerable and afraid of day to day events that take place a work which pose no threat to her. Counsel submitted that the grievor’s state of mind is bordering on being paranoid, believing that everyone is targeting her. Counsel argued that this is a product of her own sensitivity and vulnerability. As she reviewed the particulars counsel noted that many of the grievances were filed during periods when the grievor was not even at the workplace. [8] Employer counsel referred to article 22.1 of the collective agreement, which reads. 22.1 It is the intent of this Agreement to adjust as quickly as possible any complaints or differences between the parties arising from the interpretation, application, administration or alleged contravention of this agreement, including any questions as to whether a matter is arbitrable. (underlining added) Section 7(3) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act (CECBA) which reads: Every collective agreement relating to crown employees shall be deemed to provide for the final and binding settlement by arbitration by the Grievance Settlement Board without stoppage of work, of all differences between the parties arising from the interpretation, application, administration or alleged violation of the agreement, including any question as to whether a matter is arbitrable. (underling added) [9] Counsel relied on the underlined words in those provisions and submitted that where an employee feels that a right he/she has under the collective agreement or legislation had been violated, he/she has the right to file a grievance. However, the GSB is a statutory tribunal, and its jurisdiction is -5 - limited by provisions in CECBA and the collective agreement. In individual grievances the Board has jurisdiction only over alleged violations which directly or indirectly impacted the grievor’s rights under the collective agreement or legislation. Even though the Board may have sympathy about a grievor’s feelings or concerns, it has no jurisdiction over grievances that do not meet that test or grievances based on grievor’s personal agendas or perceived concerns, however strongly held. [10] Counsel submitted that each preliminary objections raised by the employer must be considered in the larger context of the number of grievances filed by this grievor, the nature of those grievances, when they were filed, whether the grievor was at work at the time of filing at the time, her subjective intention, and her current employment status and circumstances. No Prima Facie Case [11] Citing Re Couture, GSB 2008-0808 (Dissanayake), counsel said that the moving party must establish that the facts asserted, if accepted as true, are not capable of establishing the elements necessary to substantiate the violations alleged. In the instant grievances, the grievor primarily alleges violations of articles 2 (management rights), 3 (discrimination) and 9 (health and safety). However, there are no facts in the particulars that could possibly substantiate violations of any of those articles. The same is true with respect to the allegation that the grievor had been disciplined. The facts asserted are mostly about the grievor’s subjective concerns, fears or conclusions and her opinions about how the employer must exercise its management rights. Counsel cited and reviewed the following authorities. Re Martin GSB 2020- 2136 (Dissanayake); Re Solomon Smith 2017-0054 (Anderson); Re Pletikos, GSB 2011-0750 (Dassanayake); Re Poblete GSB 2017-0709 (Herlich); Re Bonneveld GSB 2010-1747 (Briggs); Re Morgan, GSB 2012-1700 (Tims). Not Arbitrable [12] Employer counsel again relied on S. 7(3) of CECBA and article 22.1 of the collective agreement and submitted that a grievance is arbitrable only if it -6 - alleges that a right the grievor has under the collective agreement or legislation has been adversely impacted by the asserted employer action or inaction. Counsel cited the following authorities. Re May, GSB 2001-1151 (Abramsky); Re Difrederico GSB 2008-0868 (Dissanayake); Re Belanger et al, 1999-1782 (Harris); Re Lesieur et al, 2002-1756 (Briggs); Re OPSEU and the Ministry of Government Services, GSB 2011-2449 (Petryshen). Not Proper Individual Grievances [13] Again, counsel relied on the same statutory and collective agreement provisions, and submitted that the grievor is not entitled to grieve in her individual grievances that rights of her co-workers or of the union were violated. She can only assert that her own rights were impacted. Many of her grievances are about the health and safety of others. Counsel relied on the following authorities. Re May (supra); Re Fox, GSB 1982-572 (Draper); Re Taylor-Baptiste, 1988-469 (Dissanayake); Re Haynes, 1989-1246 (Kirkwood); Re O’Flaherty, 2017-0444 (Luborsky). Moot or Resolved [14] Employer counsel submitted that if some grievances survive the no prima facie case motion, they are moot or resolved. In some the grievor’s concern have been addressed by the employer. In others, there is no live issue because the permanent medical restrictions imposed on the grievor do not permit her to return to work in a correctional environment, and also because Cecil Facer is slated to be closed down. This preliminary objection applies to 12 of the 36 grievances. Counsel relied on the following authorities: Borowski v. The AG of Canada [1989] S.C.R. 242 (S.C.C.); Re Mohamed, 2020-2014 (Hewat). Untimely Referral to arbitration [15] Counsel’s motion for dismissals on this ground related to grievances, 32 to 36, all of which were discovered by the employer after this hearing had commenced and were subsequently referred to arbitration. [16] Following the review of the law relevant to the preliminary motions, employer counsel applied the principles therein to each of the grievances. I will only deal -7 - with submissions made in relation to the 24 grievances that remained after the union withdrew the rest. Grievances 1 and 2 [17] Employer counsel reviewed the statements in the grievances filed on July 15, 2015. With respect to grievance 1 she reviewed paragraphs 48, 49 and 109 as those relevant. Paragraphs 67 to 77 and 89 were reviewed as relevant to grievance 2. [18] Employer counsel submitted that the particulars for grievance 1 have no facts to suggest that the grievor was disciplined at all. There is no assertion that she was issued any letter of discipline or that any discipline was documented anywhere. Instead, the particulars state that the grievor asked whether she was being disciplined and the manager clearly said “no”. Therefore, there is no prima facie case with respect to the allegation of discipline. Since there was no discipline, the absence of a union representative during this meeting is a non- issue. [19] Counsel submitted that the particulars do not assert facts as to what the discipline was, or who disciplined her. The particulars suggests that the alleged harassment and bullying was committed by disciplining the grievor. Thus, in the absence of a prima facie case for discipline, there cannot be a prima facie case for the harassment/bullying allegations either. Reliance was placed on Re Problate (supra) and Re Mohamed (supra). [20] With regard to the allegation of discrimination, counsel submitted that the grievance form nor the particulars specify what the prohibited ground was or what protected group the grievor was part of. The employer was aware that the grievor had fears and found working with the youth very stressful and challenging. It addressed this by approving sick leave when the grievor requested. However, the particulars do not assert facts to establish that it was made aware that the grievor had a disability or that the grievor was subjected to differential treatment, or if there was any differential treatment, that it was in any way linked to her disability. -8 - For those reasons, counsel submitted that the Board should dismiss grievances 1 and 2 as not establishing a prima facie violation of articles 2, 3 or 9 of the Ontario Human Rights Code. [21] Counsel submitted that if the Board does not dismiss the grievances on that motion, it should do so on the grounds that they are moot. Citing Borowski, as holding that a complaint is moot if a live issue no longer exists, counsel submitted that in these grievances that is the case, because the grievor has a permanent restriction that prevents her from working in a correctional environment and it was announced in February 2023 that Cecil Facer is to close down in about one year. Counsel also pointed out that many of the individuals against whom the allegations were made have either retired or left Cecil Facer. Counsel urged the Board to conclude that there is no live controversy that is arbitrable and there is no reason to exercise the Board’s discretion to proceed with a hearing. Grievance 3 [22] Grievance 3 was filed on April 7, 2016, while the grievor was on a leave of absence. Counsel reviewed the statement of grievance and submitted that she could not find any particulars that could potentially establish the alleged violations. There is no information at all as to who did what or when to foster a poisoned work environment or to harass and discriminate against her. Therefore the test in Re Couture is clearly not met and the Boad should find no prima facie case and dismiss grievance 3. In the alternative, counsel submitted that, for the same reasons she had presented with respect to grievances 1 and 2, the Board should find no live issue to be arbitrated and find this grievance moot. [23] Grievance 4 was also filed on April 7, 2016, while the grievor was off on STSP. Counsel submitted that this grievance is also about the incident involving YSO D’Orazio a year earlier, which had been grieved in grievance 2. She stated that she could not find any facts other than those at paragraphs 67 to 77 of the particulars. Like grievance 2, there are no facts that could establish the -9 - elements of the allegations of harassment, bullying violence by any managers or co-workers or what management failed to do. It is nothing but a list of complaints and conclusions, which the employer has “failed to deal with”. In this grievance it is alleged that the on-going workplace issues involve violence and bullying by “management and senior administration”. However, there is no information of who the management and senior administration were. Nor are there any particulars of how she was discriminated against or what the prohibited ground was. Counsel submitted that in these circumstances the Board should dismiss grievance 4 also as not establishing a prima facie case. In the alternative, counsel argued that this grievance is moot for the same reasons as the previous grievances. [24] Grievance 5 was filed on July 19, 2018, again while the grievor was off on STSP. Employer counsel reviewed the statement of grievance as well as paragraphs 195 to 197 of the particulars as relevant to it. Employer counsel submitted that while the grievor has provided some particulars, it was lacking in detail. She commenced to submit that documentary evidence will contradict the grievor’s position that she had been cleared to start work that day. When the arbitrator intervened, counsel agreed that at this stage the grievor’s facts are deemed to be true. [25] In support of her alternate submission of mootness also, she stated that documentary evidence will show that she was not supposed to return to work on June 19, 2018, as she claims. She submitted that unlike in no prima facie case motions, the employer is entitled to present evidence to support a mootness motion, to show there is no live issue to be arbitrated. That is particularly so because this allegation against Mr. Erwin is a one-time incident that took place 8 years ago. [26] Employer counsel reviewed the statement of grievance 6 filed on January 24, 2019. She submitted that there were no particulars to support the alleged violations of harassment and discrimination that could possibly meet the Re Couture test for prima facie case. There are no facts as to what hours she -10 - worked but was not paid or when that work was done. Nor is there any information as to what the discrimination was or who discriminated against her or harassed her. Those allegations about non-payment for work has not been particularized. Counsel submitted that this grievance should be dismissed as not establishing a prima facie case. Counsel also reviewed documentation/ records that she submitted clearly establishes that the grievor was in fact paid more than the amounts claimed in the grievance. Therefore, there is no live dispute to be arbitrated and the grievance should be declared moot. Union counsel at this point intervened and undertook to check and follow up on the employer’s position. Grievances 7, 8 and 9 [27] These grievances were filed on March 29, 2019. Employer counsel reviewed the statements in the three grievances. At the time the grievor filed these grievances the grievor was off on WSIB. She did not return to work until September 25, 2019. With regard to grievance 7, employer counsel submitted that although the grievor alleges that the employer discriminated against her because of her disability, she does not say what her disability was. There are no particulars as to who discriminated or harassed her, when that was, or what impact it had on her. Counsel reviewed the decision in Re Bonneveld , 2010- 747 (Briggs) where the allegation was that the grievor was discriminated against because of her age, when she was scheduled for less shifts than other co- workers. The arbitrator set out the following requirements an employee must meet to establish a prima facie case: 1. That he or she is a member of the group protected by the Code. 2. That he or she was subjected to adverse treatment, and 3. That his or her gender, race, color or ancestry was a factor in the adverse treatment. [28] The Board accepted that requirement 1 above was met since the grievor was 69 years old. However, in finding that requirements 2 and 3 were not met. Vice- Chair Briggs wrote the following: [48] Further, in this regard I must agree with the Employer that given -11 - the disclosure provided to the Union, the lack of “who, what, when and where” is troubling. At the time that the scheduling information was given to the Union, it knew the Employer was going to proceed with a no prima facie motion. If the disclosed information assisted the Union in its case, it could have and should have been set out in further particulars. In the facts of this case, it is not sufficient for the Union to say the Employer knew what the work schedules revealed. [51] As set out above, the third element in determining if a prima facie case has been made out is whether it was the grievor’s gender, race, colour or ancestry was a factor in the alleged adverse treatment. It is not necessary to consider if this element is present given my finding regarding adverse treatment. However, it is perhaps useful to comment that in my view there is nothing in the particulars that leads to a finding that the grievor was discriminated against because of his age. I accept that Ms. S.V. and other Cooks are younger than the grievor. But the fac that every other Cook is younger than the grievor is not, in and of itself, proof of discrimination. [29] With regard to grievance 8, counsel submitted that there are no particulars as to who, what, when, where, in relation to the allegations of being discriminated, harassed, bullied and singled out. There are no facts as to which grievances she had filed that allegedly motivated whoever singled her out, or what the adverse treatment was. Therefore, the test in Re Couture is not met. The grievance should be dismissed as not supporting a prima facie case. [30] Turning to grievance 9, employer counsel submitted it also should be dismissed as not establishing a prima facie case. While the grievance alleges “abuse of management rights, harassment and discrimination, there are no particulars as to who failed to follow what policy or procedure or when it was done. Nor is there any information as to what the adverse treatment was or what “significant repercussions that treatment had on her “health and well-being”. The arbitral jurisprudence requires the grievor to assert a nexus between the alleged adverse treatment and the alleged impact on her. Here the grievor has not even asserted facts as to what the adverse treatment or the health impact was. Grievances 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 25 [31] On September 19, 2021, the grievor filed a total of 18 individual grievances. At the time of filing these the grievor had returned to her YSO position on a gradual -12 - basis. As previously noted, after the employer completed submissions on all 18 grievances seeking their dismissal, the union withdrew 10 of them. That left the 8 above-noted grievances. [32] Counsel reviewed the statement of grievance on grievance 10 and identified paragraphs 212 to 214 of the union’s particulars as relevant to it. Counsel submitted that there are absolutely no facts to show that any youth assaulted the grievor or any staff or exhibited any hostility toward staff. The grievor on her own concluded that other staff and she may be assaulted by youth based on how the employer enforced protocol. Therefore, there is no prima facie case established. [33] Counsel also submitted that this grievance is not arbitrable because it is an allegation that the employer failed to comply with the policy on use of MP3 players by youth. Citing Re Dobroff (supra) she submitted that the Board’s jurisdiction is only with respect to disputes arising under the terms of the collective agreement and applicable legislation, not how the employer treats youth in relation to use of MP3 players or what music they listen to. [34] Counsel also relied on Re May (supra) in submitting that this grievance is inarbitrable because there are no particulars asserting that the grievor herself was impacted or could have been potentially impacted adversely as a result of the employer’s alleged failure to abide by the MP3 policy. Moreover, the grievor’s allegation that “some staff became target of youth” is not properly alleged in an individual grievance. At best, that concern may be properly raised in a union policy grievance. [35] Counsel finally relied on the submission made in relation to other grievances that this grievance is moot. [36] Employer counsel reviewed the statement of grievance 11 and stated that in her view, the particulars at paragraphs 215 to 227 relate to it. Counsel submitted that the grievor alleges that the MP 3 players’ content was “highly offensive and inappropriate songs,” but does not state what was offensive about the songs. It -13 - is a subjective conclusion by her nor does the particulars state how what “violence” prevails or how the songs are in anyway connected to that violence. [37] After a review of the statement of grievance12 , employer counsel submitted that the allegations are (1) That Mr. Erwin failed to have the meeting as promised. (2) That YSM Cheverette and YMS Terry Labbe failed to provide her a safety plan upon the grievor’s return to work and (3) That as a result of the employer’s lack of care and accountability, the grievor’s safety was jeopardized by creating a poisoned work environment, and that she was subjected to discrimination and harassment. Counsel submitted that the grievor has levelled very serious charges against managers, but no particulars are provided for any of those charges. It was submitted that this grievance should be dismissed as not supporting a prima facie case. [38] After reviewing the statement of grievance 14 counsel submitted that no specifics are provided with regard to management conduct which allegedly constituted violations of the collective agreement articles 2, 3 or 9. Counsel submitted that the facts asserted if true, only show that she was not given the requested breaks at the time the grievor wanted. She submitted that the collective agreement has no provision entitling employees to breaks or to be relieved from scheduled work. Citing Re Belanger (supra) it was submitted that this grievance is not about any dispute arising out of the collective agreement. Therefore, it is not arbitrable. [39] Referring to her submissions in relation to other grievances filed the same day, counsel submitted that this grievance fails to meet the test in Re Couture (supra) and should be dismissed as not establishing a prima facie case also. [40] Counsel reviewed the statement of grievance 15 and particulars and pointed out that paragraph 225 states that this occurred in the context of a period where many staff experienced injuries and that the grievor “felt extremely scared and took the threat quite seriously”. It was submitted that this grievance is not arbitrable and does not establish a prima facie case for the violations alleged. It was pointed out that this is about what an unidentified youth told her. The law -14 - requires the Board to accept as true for this motion only facts the grievor asserts, not what someone else told her. In any event, the grievor has turned what the youth told her into a “threat” against her. It is just a subjective reaction due to her fear and sensitivity. Citing Re Couture, counsel submitted that subjective beliefs or reactions, however genuinely held, are not to be taken as true. It was submitted that the Board has no jurisdiction to arbitrate disputes arising from subjective conclusions. The facts also do not support a prima facie case and should be dismissed. [41] Following a review of the statement of grievance 16, employer counsel stated that paragraphs 220 to 224 may pertain to this grievance. These particulars are about the grievor’s concerns and subjective fears and beliefs about employer’s policies relating to use of MP3 players by youth. Citing Re Belanger (supra) she submitted that there are no facts to link her fears and concerns about that policy to any right she has under the collective agreement. Citing Re Taylor-Baptiste (supra), she submitted that there are no facts to show that the employer’s action or inaction with respect to MP 3 players in any way impacted on her rights or that of any other staff. Therefore, the Board was urged to dismiss the grievance as inarbitrable and/or not establish a prima facie case. [42] Counsel submitted that there are no particulars with respect to this grievance apart from the grievance statement alleging failure by the employer to follow proper medical policy and procedure with regard to a youth. Those facts have nothing to do with any rights the grievor has under the collective agreement. Counsel submitted that the grievance should be dismissed as arbitrable and not establish a prima facie case. [43] After a review of the statement of grievance 25, counsel submitted that the only particulars relevant to this grievance is paragraph 212, which states in part: YSOP Walsh then left the grievor and the youth by themselves (which is contrary to the safety protocols of making sure that there are always more than one staff present when accompanying youth) and stated that he would “have to go relieve Mason”. She submitted that this is another example of the grievor complaining and -15 - disagreeing with how management is running the institution. The grievor asserts that the policy and procedure at another institution are better than at Cecil Facer. Citing Re Taylor-Baptist, (supra) counsel submitted that this is not a grievance about her safety. She has not set out any facts as to how what her co-worker did on that occasion impacted her health and safety or that the employer was even aware of what the co-worker did. Counsel submitted that the grievance should be dismissed as inarbitrable and not supporting a prima facie case. [44] Employer counsel reviewed the statement of grievance 30, which is about the grievor being provided with COVID rapid test kits with expired dates. She submitted that this grievance alleges only a violation of the management rights clause by the employer’s failure to inform the grievor that the manufacturer had extended the expiry date of the COVID rapid tests. Citing GSB decisions and the court decision in Weber, she submitted that the grievance has no link to the collective agreement and, therefore, inarbitrable. She referred to documentary evidence and submitted that a memorandum in fact was sent to all staff, including the grievor, informing of the extension of the expiry date. [45] Counsel submitted that in any event it is not asserted that the alleged omission by the employer resulted in impacting on the health and safety of the grievor rights under article 9. Her assertion that is caused her “unnecessary” stress is her own subjective conclusion. There are no facts asserted as to how that stress was manifested or when she experienced stress. It was submitted that the Board should find that there was no prima facie case of violation of any provision of the collective agreement. PARTICULARS FOR THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCES ARE ATTACHED AS APPENDIX B Grievance 31 [46] Employer counsel submitted that the particulars describe disorderly, conduct, and profanity by a youth and his assault or the grievor. The grievor does not assert any action or inaction by management which led to the assault. Counsel -16 - noted that youth in custody are convicts. There is no doubt they could misbehave and be violent at times. However, dealing with difficult youth is a part of a YSO’s job. [47] Counsel submitted that the particulars do not establish a prima facie case that the employer violated any provision in the collective agreement that conferred any right on the grievor. She submitted, citing Re Damani (supra) that the grievor’s belief, however strongly held, is not sufficient to show a prima facie case. [48] Employer counsel submitted that grievances 32 to 36 are very similar. Grievance 32 [49] This grievance was filed on January 28, 2020, while the grievor was off on WSIB. Employer counsel reviewed the particulars and referred to the WSIB memorandum which the union relies on. She submitted that it does not indicate the employer’s unwillingness to accommodate the grievor. It simply sets out her restrictions, including inability to engage in crisis intervention. That means she cannot work with youth. Reviewing another WSIB document, she submitted that it says while the grievor may monitor cameras and observe violence visually, she cannot be physically involved or have hands-on contact with youth. She submitted that this is what the grievor had told the WSIB. Counsel submitted that contrary to the union’s assertion, the employer had in fact offered the grievor to return to work in the control position. However, the grievor, the WSIB and the employer had agreed that there is no suitable work for the grievor at Cecil Facer. Grievance 33 [50] This grievance was filed on February 10, 2020, approximately a month after grievance 32, while the grievor was still off on WSIB. Counsel directed the Board’s attention to the WSIB documents she had reviewed in relation to grievance 32, which makes it clear that the grievor, the WSIB and the employer agreed that there was no suitable work for the grievor at Cecil Facer. Grievance 34 -17 - [51] This grievance was filed on October 1, 2020. Relying on the Borowski decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, counsel for the employer once again reviewed documentary evidence to argue that the grievor’s restrictions prevented her from returning to work at Cecil Fraser, and moreover Cecil Facer is scheduled to close down in a year. Therefore, the claim in this grievance to be return the grievor to work is a remedy not available. Thus, there is no live issue to be arbitrated. Counsel argued that the grievance was referred to arbitration long after the mandatory time limit had passed. It should be also dismissed as untimely. Grievance 35 [52] This grievance was filed on November 13, 2020. Employer counsel stated that grievance 35 alleges that articles 2 and 3 were violated by the employer in two ways. First, that the employer failed to comply with the timelines stipulated in the collective agreement in processing her grievance 34 filed on October 1, 2020, and secondly, by not correctly following the Health and Productivity Program process. [53] With regard to the first allegation counsel submitted that if the employer misses the deadline to hold the first stage resolution meeting, the case law is clear that the clock continues to run for the 15 days the grievor has under article 22.6.1 to refer the grievance to arbitration by the GSB. Employer counsel referred to documentation and submitted that this grievance is also moot because it was addressed in February 2021. It was referred to arbitration approximately 23 months after the article 22.6 deadline had passed. Like grievance 34, the employer was justified in concluding that it had been abandoned. [54] Counsel submitted that while she had raised different preliminary objections with respect to grievances 32 to 36 the Board should dismiss all of them simply on the basis that they were referred to arbitration long after the 15-day timeline had under article 22.6 had expired. [55] Counsel filed a chart, the content of which was not disputed by the union. The chart is as follows: Grievance Date filed Date of referral -18 - No: 32-GSB 2022-11845 Jan. 28, 2020 Feb. 6, 2023 No: 33-GSB 2022-11844 Feb. 10, 2020 Feb. 6, 2023 No: 34-GSB 2022-11846 Oct. 1, 2020 Feb. 6, 2023 No: 35-GSB 2022-11847 Nov. 13, 2020 Feb. 6, 2023 No: 36-GSB 2022-11848 Dec. 12, 2020 Feb. 6, 2023 Counsel submitted that grievance 33 was filed approximately 34 months after the mandatory time limit for referral stipulated in article 22.6 had expired. The other four grievances were filed approximately 2 years late. [56] Counsel submitted that while the Board has discretion to extend time limits for referral to arbitration, there are no valid reasons to exercise that discretion in for these grievances. She stated that the nature of the grievances does not favor extension. She stated the Board should consider the nature of these grievances. Grievance 32 and 33 allege failure to accommodate, not at the lowest in the spectrum of seriousness, but not very serious either like termination. Grievance 34 was about an alleged failure to pay for half an hour. Grievance 35 alleged a violation of failure to properly process a grievance she filed in October 2021 and failure to properly follow the employer’s health productivity program. Grievance 36 complains that her pay cheques and pension contributions were incorrect and difficult to understand. [57] Employer counsel submitted that an examination of the nature of grievances 32 to 36, in the context of the employer’s in the context of the employer’s numerous preliminary objections raised against each of them, and the lengthy delays in referring them to arbitration, the Board should not exercise its discretion to extend time. Grievances should be dismissed for failure to comply with article 22.6. In support of her submissions counsel relied on a number of authorities including the following: Re Becker Milk Company (1975) 19 L.A.C. (2d) 217 (Burkett); Greater Niagara General Hospital ((1981) 1 L.A.C. (3d) (Schiff); Re Chu, 2015-2559 (Petryshen), Re Stone, 1111-99 (Johnston Re Problete (supra); Re Crawford (supra); and (Re Smith (Gray) 2006-2107. -19 - [58] Employer counsel argued that in these grievances no reasons or explanations for the delays have been provided. She submitted, citing Re Nedai 2015-2063 (Briggs) that the grievor is someone who had filed many grievances over the years. Even if the union was responsible for the delays, the grievor should have checked to ensure that the union processes her grievances in a timely way. [59] Employer counsel took the position that given the lengthy delays and all of the other factors, the employer was entitled to assume that the grievances had been abandoned and/or are moot. Many of the managers named in the grievances have retired or otherwise left the ministry. Even if the employer is able to contact them it is unlikely that they would have relevant documents or have a good memory with regard to the allegations made against them. Therefore, if the Board extends time, it will result in significant prejudice to the employer’s ability to defend itself. Union submissions [60] Counsel commenced by reviewing articles 2 (Management Rights), 3 (Discrimination and harassment) and 9 (Health & Safety). He submitted that in determining the motions against grievances alleging violations of those provisions, legislation and relevant employer policies must also be given consideration. [61] Counsel disagreed that the grievor had not identified any disability. He reviewed numerous paragraphs in the union’s particulars to argue that the employer was well aware that the grievor had a disability which brought her within a protected group under article 3 and the OHRC. [62] Counsel submitted that overall, the union’s theory in these grievances is that the employer’s actions or failures to take action resulted in discrimination and harassment of the grievor, who was entitled to protection as a disabled person. He submitted that the union has made out a prima facie case for the alleged violations. The following authorities were relied on: Re Martin, 2013-3579 (Anderson); Re Taylor, 2022-7434 (O’Neil); Re Pereira, 2013-0016 (Harris); Royal Ottawa Hospital, July 15, 2016 (Ont. Ct. of Justice). Citing Re Bellanger, -20 - (Harris) (supra), it was submitted that in determining no prima facie motions, the Board should be guided only by the statement in the grievance form filed and the particulars filed by the Union. [63] With regard to motions that grievances are not arbitrable, counsel submitted that the GSB’s jurisprudence, including Re Dobroff (Dissanayake) (supra), and other decisions that followed it, requiring that a grievance alleging a violation of article 2 must have a hook to another substantive provision of the collective agreement or legislation a right, is no longer good law after the court decisions in Weber, Parry Sound and the SCC decision in Bhasin & Associates (2014) SSC 71. The union relied on the following authorities: Re Global Edmonton, 125 C.L.A.S. 1 (Surdykowski); Re Unimin Canada LTD, 128 C.L.A.S. 93 (Steinberg) Re Hamilton Kent, 127 C.L.A.S. 314 (Luborsky); Re Islamic Foundation School, 136 C.L.A.S. 66 (Anderson); Re AMAPCEO & the Crown (GSB) 133 C.L.A.S. 236 (Luborsky). Counsel submitted that the principle in Re Blake, which the Board applies consistently, does not mean that it ought to ignore more recent developments in the law through the courts. He cited Re Duffy, 2007-2737 (Keller); Re Lariviere, 2002-2124 (Dissanayake); Re Johnson, 2009-1147 (Dissanayake). [64] Union counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Bhasin v. Harynew 2014 S.C.C. 71 (“Bhasin”) which recognized a duty of good faith generally, and a common law duty to act honestly in the performance of contractual obligations. Counsel pointed out that arbitrators have applied these principles to review exercise of management rights in arbitration. Re Global Edmonton, (2015) 263 L.A.C. (4th ) 363 (Sims); Re Bell Canada, (2016) 127 C.L.A.S. 1 (Surdykowski); Re Unimin Canada (2016) 271 L.A.C.S. 314 (Luborsky). He submitted that based on the principles developed in Bhasin, the Board has jurisdiction over grievances filed by the grievor, even where there is no specific provision in the collective agreement alleged to have been violated. [65] Union counsel agreed that an employee cannot file grievances on behalf of others. However, in these grievances and the particulars, the grievor claims that -21 - the rights of all employees were violated. That includes the grievor. Citing Re May, 2001-1151, (Abramsky) and Re Hawley, 1988-2592 (Dissanayake), counsel. submitted that as long as the grievor’s rights are affected, she is entitled to file an individual grievance. However, if the grievance is successful, any remedy ordered will be restricted to the grievor. Re Taylor-Baptists, 469/88 (Dissanayake). [66] On motions alleging mootness, counsel did not dispute the legal principle in decisions such as Borosky (supra) and Re Mohamed (supra) that a grievance is moot if a live controversy no longer exists. However, he pointed out that in these grievances, there is no suggestion that the employer ever conceded that it contravened any right of the grievor or that she was provided any remedy. Counsel referred to Re York University, (2010) 199 (L.A.C. (4th ) Slotnick), where the arbitrator concluded that Borowski clarified the law on the mootness issue and that arbitration awards that pre-date it is not of much assistance. At pages 242-243 he wrote: It is also worth remembering Borowski’s two-step analysis, giving discretion to proceed even if the concrete dispute has disappeared. Generally in labour relations, in my view, it must be left to the parties themselves to determine when there is a dispute. Aside from circumstances where the grievance ha, in fact, been settled, one party cannot simply declare that a dispute is over, no should be arbitrator decline to hear the case where there are still potential remedies that have not been granted, or where here may be differing interpretations of the collective agreement that have wider application than to the individual grievor’s situation. In many cases, a change in circumstances may cause the union to withdraw the grievance, but the decision to proceed is generally a decision for the union, not the arbitrator. Here, the grievance has not been settled. The employer, as is its right, has not said anything to indicate it believes the collective agreement was violated, nor has it agreed formally that the grievor met the qualifications at the time of the grievance. While the changed circumstances since the filing of the grievance mean that at least one potential remedy – deemed incumbency – is no longer in issue, other remedies are requested in the grievance but have not been granted. Furthermore, the union has raised a number of clauses in the collective agreement that may be subject to interpretation I the case proceeds. It would be premature for me to discuss these at this stage. A hearing of this grievance may not necessarily result in any definitive agreement that may be subject interpretation if the case proceeds. It would be premature for me to -22 - discuss these at this state. A hearing of this grievance may not necessarily result in any definitive statements about the training clauses or whether meeting the qualifications for the classroom version of the course automatically means an applicant meets the qualifications for the internet version of the same course. However, on a plain reading of Article 12.17.4 there is at least an argument that this grievor is entitled to a financial and possibly other remedies in these circumstances, notwithstanding any other provisions of the collective agreement, including the cap. Certainly the university disagrees with the union on this point, but that is a matter for the hearing if it proceeds. However, the simple fact that potential remedies still exist leads me to the conclusion that this situation meets the “live controversy” test. [67] Counsel submitted that if the Board finds any violations, even if all remedies sought are moot or not available, as long as there is potential that some remedies may be available to the grievor the grievance still has a live controversy. [68] On the timeliness motions with respect to grievances 32 to 36 union counsel conceded that the union has no reasons or explanations for the delay in referral to arbitration, and that referrals were significantly delayed. He informed the Board that the union will not be arguing that the employer had waived the right to rely on timelines for referral to arbitration in article 22.6. Its position was that the Board should exercise its discretion to extend the time limits in the particular circumstances of grievances 32 to 36. [69] There was no dispute between the parties that the Board has the discretionary jurisdiction to extend time limits under arbitral law generally, and specifically under article 22.14.7 of the collective agreement. The disagreement was as to whether the Board should exercise that jurisdiction in these grievances. Both parties relied on the awards in Becker Milk (supra) and Greater Niagara Hospital. The union pointed to the reference in article 22. 14. 7 to absence of substantial prejudice. Counsel submitted that if the employer does not establish that the substantial prejudice as a result of delay in referral of these grievances the Board ought to extend the limits regardless of the other factors, including the length of the delays. He referred to the Becker Milk and Greater Niagara decisions as the “seminal authorities on the subject, and submitted that they are -23 - consistent with the court decision in Blouin Drywall, which stands for the proposition that grievances ought not be dismissed on technical grounds. He agreed that the employer has presented some arbitration awards that have held that existence of substantial prejudice is not always necessary for an arbitrator to refuse to extend time. He submitted, however, that those awards are contrary to the seminal cases he relies on. [70] Counsel submitted that the theory of the grievances is that the employer had engaged in a pattern of harassing and bullying, which resulted in a poisoned work environment for the grievor. The grievor had just returned to work after a period of stress leave. Yet the employer took no action to address her repeated complaints. The employer has admitted that YSO D’Orazio had “ done it” before. So the employer was aware of that. Also, Ms. Brouillette, instead of dealing with D’Orazio’s misconduct repeatedly asked the grievor to “cope” and seek assistance from EAP and get medical treatment. She kept asking the grievor if she was “OK”. YSM Thomas yelled at her about the Health Productivity meeting. The grievor was asked to write an Occurrence Report about who she was talking to outside during a smoke break. YSM Burke again allowed D’Orazio to harass the grievor. It was submitted that the facts, deemed to be true, have the potential to support a breach. [71] Counsel pointed out that employer counsel had referred several times to evidence the employer has in its possession, which she submitted would disprove what the particulars assert. Citing Re Taylor (supra) counsel submitted that availability of a defense for the employer is not relevant in determining a no prima facie case motion. That is a matter to be dealt with at the hearing on the merits of a grievance. [72] Counsel submitted that the asserted facts about what the employer did, through YSMs Brouillette, Thomas and Burke are directly related to the grievor’s disability. The grievor has stated that the employer’s conduct increased her anxiety and stress level. Citing Re Pereira, (supra), counsel submitted that it is not necessary to show actual injury in defending against these motions. The -24 - particulars assert that the employer conduct in fact impacted her health negatively. [73] Counsel submitted that the decisions in Borowski and Re Mohamed are distinguishable. There the employer had granted the remedy requested, and no other remedy was available. Re Mohamed, the grievance was only about the termination of the grievor, who had since been reinstated. There were no other issues of harassment, bullying or human rights violations. In these grievances the allegations of harassment, bullying, discrimination etc. have not been addressed. The grievor’s WDHP complaint had been found out of scope. The employer had denied all violations alleged and continues to do so. The grievor has challenged the WSHP’s finding. Therefore, a live controversy still exists. Citing Re York University (supra) he argued that the grievor, if successful, is entitled to damages or at least a declaratory remedy. Therefore the grievances are not moot. [74] Counsel submitted that despite the filing of grievances 1 and 2 nothing was done. The grievor continued to be harassed, bullied and discriminated against. In response she filed grievances 3 and 4 on April 7, 2016. Referring to the particulars, he pointed out that the employer decided to schedule the grievor with YSO D’Orazio, relying on the “out of scope” WDHP finding. The grievor told several managers that she did not feel safe working with D’Orazio, but the employer ignored her pleas. The grievor was so upset that she had to pull over for over half an hour while driving home from work, because of her elevated level of stress and anxiety. [75] Counsel referred to particulars including that the grievor became very anxious just by seeing D’Orazio; that when she felt ill at work and wanted to go home, employer made her wait with D’Orazio until a YSO arrived to relieve her. She saw her doctor who put her off work. After she returned, she was again assigned to work with D’Orazio. -25 - [76] Counsel pointed to facts, which he submitted shows that when the grievor enforced the policy on use of MP3 players by youth, no action was taken against youth who had violated the policy. Instead, the grievor was ordered to do an OR about her concern and she was pulled from a training session so she could write it. He also pointed out that the employer took no action when she brought to its attention many other incidents of inappropriate behavior by youth. This caused the grievor to go on sick leave from March 30 to September 16, 2016. [77] Counsel submitted that the events particularized if seen in isolation may not come within the definitions of harassment or bullying. However, the number of continuing events taken together is potentially sufficient to support the grievances. The grievor, therefore, is justified in describing that the grievances are about “the employer’s inability to deal with ongoing harassment”. The theory of the grievance is the ongoing harassment by exposing the grievor to an unsafe work environment despite her repeated complaints that she felt unsafe. It resulted in the grievor having to go off work on sick leave. Counsel reminded that the test is not whether the asserted facts establish a breach, but whether they may potentially do so. With regard to the mootness motion, counsel relied on his submissions on grievances 1 and 2. [78] On grievance 5, counsel submitted that the theory of the grievance is that the employer refused to allow the grievor to return to work following an extended period of sick leave, despite the fact that the insurance carrier Manulife had cleared her to resume work on June 19, 2018. When she reported to work, she was told by Mr. Erwin that she was not allowed to be in the facility. When she tried to explain, she was escorted out by a manager. She was confused why she was being treated like that and felt intimidated and bullied by Mr. Erwin. [79] Counsel submitted that those facts could potentially support a breach of articles 2, 3 and 9, and that there was a failure to accommodate, Code based and personal harassment. Counsel submitted hat if the employer has evidence as it claims that Manulife had not cleared the grievor to return to work or that it had good reasons for not allowing the grievor to return to work at that time, it will be -26 - open to it to adduce that evidence at the hearing on the merits. [80] On mootness, counsel pointed out that the grievor should have been returned to work on June 19, 2018, but was not allowed until September. Since LTIP benefits are less than wages, the grievor would have lost financially. Besides, if upheld the grievor may be entitled to damages. Citing York University, he submitted that since the employer has not admitted any violation, no remedy had been provided, and the grievance was not settled, there are live controversies that have not been addressed. The grievance, therefore, is not moot. [81] Counsel pointed out that grievance 6 alleges harassment and discrimination and cites articles 2, 3 and 9, WDHP Human Rights Code as well as policies and procedures. Counsel stated that the facts are very simple. Employer counsel had agreed that since the grievor had been off from March 2016 to September 2018, she was required to do a training session. There is also no dispute that the grievor attended the training and was entitled to wages for that time. The grievance alleges that she was not paid for the time she attended the training. The employer takes the position that she was paid appropriately. That is a factual dispute. The employer has all the information it needs to be able to defend its position at a hearing on the merits. Any evidence the employer has cannot be presented at this stage. The facts asserted by the grievor meets the test and the no prima facia case motion must be dismissed. [82] On Mootness, counsel submitted that whether the grievor was paid or not is still a live dispute between the parties and therefore, the grievance is not moot. [83] Counsel dealt with grievances 7, 8, and 9 together and described them as “a reach back” to the prior grievances. Counsel reviewed the various periods during which the grievor was off on LTIP or WSIB benefits and submitted that these grievances were again a plea to the employer to deal with her prior grievances, including those related to harassment by YSO D’Orazio, which had caused her significant health issues, but not addressed Counsel submitted that the theory in these grievances is that the employer had still not addressed the -27 - harassment, bullying and discrimination she had grieved about. Counsel submitted that it is a reasonable theory, and the Board should dismiss the no prima facie case motion. [84] Counsel disagreed with employer counsel’s submission that these grievances are not arbitrable because there are no facts to support them. He submitted that the facts are the same facts the grievor relied on with respect to her earlier grievances. [85] Union counsel also addressed these grievances together as a group. He pointed out that the grievor returned to work on a gradual basis in July having been off on WSIB benefits from February 2019. When she returned in July 2020 she worked in maintenance and in September 2020 started as a YSO “shadowing” with restrictions. Then in November 2020 she started duties as a YSO, still with some restrictions. Counsel stated that on May 24th , she was assaulted by a youth with a punch on her head. She fell and hit her head on the floor. This put her off on WSIB again. She returned to work on July 19, 2021 with restrictions including no contact with youth. However, on November 23, 2021 she was again assaulted by a youth and was put off on WSIB. She had not returned to work since then. She was medically found to be unable to do her pre-injury YSO job. [86] Counsel submitted that the foregoing facts form the “context” for the 18 grievances she filed on September 19, 2021 including the group still before the Board. He stated that in these grievances she was asking the employer to do a number of things, including take her health and safety complaints seriously, to cease the harassment she was being subjected to at work, and to follow its own rules in relation to management of youth, and ensure that all employees also do the same. [87] Counsel submitted that this group of grievances are about health and safety, alleging that the employer had breached article 9 by failing to take reasonable precautions to provide the grievor with a safe workplace. Counsel stated that -28 - the grievor has alleged that the MP3 songs the youth wee accessing contained inappropriate content which encourage violence, and were offensive to women. The employer was allowing that in contravention of its own policy on personal use of the employer’s IT program. It is a misuse of that program. Counsel reviewed the particulars setting out facts on the MP3 issue. [88] Counsel submitted that while the grievor was enforcing the prohibiting personal use of MP 3 players by youth in the facility, other YSOs and even management were not. Counsel pointed out that employer counsel had asserted that the youth are very volatile and tend to misbehave often. Therefore, it is not surprising that they would mistreat the grievor for being strict on enforcing the rules on use of MP3 players. He submitted that there is in fact clear evidence that the grievor was targeted, since she was assaulted twice by youth. [89] Union counsel submitted that these facts constitute support to establish a prima facia of violation of article 9. He also relied on the case law he had reviewed and submitted that the motions to the effect that the grievances are not arbitrable and improperly filed as individual grievances have no merit and ought to be dismissed. Employer Reply [90] Counsel pointed out that although union counsel stated that all of the harassment grievances were triggered by the incidents involving YSO D’Orazio, the examples counsel presented about why the grievor became fearful, scared and depressed etc. happened months after that incident. Therefore, that incident could not be the reason the grievor went off sick for an extended period. In any event, the particulars show that the employer took steps to separate D’Orazio and the grievor. [91] Counsel submitted that although grievance 3 alleges that the grievor was disciplined, there are no particulars to support that. [92] With regard to grievance 5, employer counsel pointed out that the grievance was filed in 2018. She submitted that the Manulife documents make it clear that the -29 - grievor was on LTIP until September 2018, and was not cleared to return to work until October 2018. Relying on Re Martin, (Anderson) supra, counsel submitted that “it is not believable” she was cleared to return any earlier. [93] On grievance 6, counsel submitted that while the grievor states that she was not paid for 32 hours for time she attended a training session, there are no particulars as to when or how she earned 32 hours of pay. Therefore, there are no facts to support the alleged violation, and the no prima facia case motion should be upheld. [94] Counsel pointed out that although grievances 7, 8 and 9 were filed on the same day, they raise different issues. Also, they were filed at a time the grievor was off on WSIB. Union counsel explained that these grievances “reach back” to previously filed grievances because the violations were continuing. There must be particulars for the subsequent grievances that show how the violations continued. None has been set out. Employer counsel argued that these grievances also allege that the employer failed to follow its own policies but no particulars are provided as to how her collective agreement or statutory rights were impacted as a result of that. [95] Counsel next turned to the group of grievances 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 25, still before the Board from the 18 the grievor had filed on September 19, 2021. Counsel submitted that although union counsel suggested that in May 2021 the grievor was targeted and attacked by a youth because she enforced policy on use of MP3 players, the particulars show that was not the case. There was a fight between two youths during which one was punching the other. When the grievor and others got between the two to break it up the grievor was accidentally hit on the head by a punch. The grievor was not targeted and intentionally punched at all. [96] With respect to grievance 10, counsel submitted that the allegation is that the -30 - employer’s failure to follow the policy on MP3 players put the grievor at risk. That was the union’s theory with respect to all grievances, alleging that the employer failed to enforce policies when dealing with youth. Citing Re Couture (supra) and Re Pereira (supra), counsel submitted that no facts are provided to support that theory. Counsel also repeated that in the absence of facts which seen objectively show any threat to the grievor’s health and safety due to the non -compliance with the MP3 policy, the grievance is inarbitrable. [97] Counsel submitted that grievance 11 alleges that the employer’s failure to deal with the grievor’s concerns about the content of the MP3 players the youth had access to, amounted to failure to ensure that her workplace was free of harassment and threats. However, the particulars are only about the grievor’s subjective fears and conclusions that the songs and lyrics in the songs youth were listening to pose a threat to her health and safety. While is not necessary to show facts of actual harm, there has to be objective facts that have the potential to support that. The union has no such objective facts. Therefore there is no prima facia case. [98] Counsel submitted that grievance 11 only shows that the grievor disagrees with how the employer applies the MP3 policy. Whenever she does not agree with what the employer was doing, she filed a grievance. Grievances not supported by facts objectively establishing a potential of impacting her healthy safety rights are not arbitrable. [99] Grievance 12 alleges that when the grievor brought to Mr. Erwin’s attention her concern about the inappropriate content of MP3 songs, he promised that the MP3 player which she had confiscated from the youth will not be returned to the youth. However, another member of management told her that it was returned to the youth with some songs deleted. Counsel again stated that there are no facts particularized to show objectively that content of songs on MP3 player in anyway impacted on the grievor’s health and safety rights, or even caused youths to become violent or misbehave. -31 - [100] It is also alleged that Mr. Erwin called her a liar, questioned her motives when she filed grievances and reports and raised concerns for her health and safety. The grievor asserts that Mr. Erwin was mocking her complaints. She “believes that she was mistreated in this manner. It created and contributed to a poisoned work environment”. Counsel submitted that these facts only show that Mr. Erwin was frustrated with the grievor repeatedly complaining and raising objections to how the employer was handling youths. This was one occasion when Mr. Erwin was very frustrated and reacted. The facts do not amount to harassment or a violation of article 9. [101] In grievance 14 YSM Brouillette’s conduct on September 13, 2021 is alleged to have contravened articles 2, 3, and 9 by requesting an OR and by not sending a YSO to relieve her at the time she requested. Counsel submitted that while the grievor has labelled YSM Brouillette’s conduct as harassment and discrimination, labels are not what matters. The facts do not establish a prima facia case. (Re Nedai, supra) [102] Counsel stated that grievance 15 has two aspects. First it has a general allegation that the employer’s failure to respect policies and procedures with respect to a respectable workplace significantly affects the grievor’s health and impacts the health and well being of other staff and youth. There are no particulars at all about this aspect. Union counsel had submitted that despite this, the Board should read this grievance along with particulars filed for all of the other grievances and take an “overall” view. Employer counsel submitted that particulars filed for other grievances cannot make a grievance otherwise inarbitrable, a viable grievance. In the absence of facts to support the allegation this aspect of grievance 15, prima facia case has not been made out and the grievance is inarbitrable. [103] Counsel stated that the second aspect of grievance 15 is that a youth had told -32 - the grievor that a YSM told him that “sometimes fights need to happen so people learn”. Counsel submitted that the grievor has turned this comment about fights between youth into a threat on her health and safety, and claims that as a result she became extremely scared. Counsel pointed out that union counsel attempted to link this alleged hearsay comment to the fight between two youths in May 2021, during which the grievor was accidentally punched in the head. That incident happened 6 months earlier and could not have anything to do with this grievance. Employer counsel submitted that there are no facts to show that the YSM’s statement to youth could have any impact on the grievor’s health and safety. Therefore, there is no prima facia case. [104] Employer counsel submitted that in grievance 16 the grievor continues to complain that various managers made aware of her concerns that the MP3 players youth had contained material encouraging criminal behavior, offensive and extremely inappropriate language towards women, racial slurs and sexually explicit lyrics, but no steps were taken to address her concerns. It is alleged that the employer instead was discriminating and harassing her for raising her concerns. Employer counsel submitted that despite union counsel’s attempt to again rely on particulars generally, this grievance also lacks facts that the manner the employer dealt with MP3 players posed any threat to the grievor’s health and safety or that she was harassed or discriminated against for raising her concerns. What it does is highlight how the grievor reacts when the employer does not exercise its management rights the way she wants , and that she is subjectively so sensitive and fearful about issues that pose no threat to her. She submitted that while the union relied on Bhasin, the GSB has recognized that there are limits to the application of the principle in that court decision. It was submitted that the employer’s no prima facia case motion should be upheld. [105] Counsel referred the Board back to her submissions that the only facts presented are about the way the employer dealt with youth and their medicines. It has nothing to do with the grievor, and definitely is not an abuse of -33 - management rights amounting to harassment or discrimination against her. It was submitted that there is no prima facia case. [106] On grievance 25, employer counsel submitted that this grievance filed in 2021 alleges that contrary to what the grievor had been told during training back in 2018 that YSOs never work alone and always there are to staff with youth, staff at Cecil Facer constantly work alone and thereby the safety of staff is jeopardized daily. Counsel referred to the staffing policy document which stipulates a ratio of one YSO to 18 youth. [107] Counsel submitted that in any event, there must be facts which support an objective concern that the grievor’s safety is jeopardized. The only fact asserted is that she was once left alone with one youth on an unspecified date and for an unspecified period. This assertion does not meet the test for prima facie cases established in the Board jurisprudence. [108] Counsel stated that the allegation in grievance 30 is to the effect that article 2 management rights were abused by the employer’s failure to inform her that the expiry date of the Antigen Rapid Covid tests she had been provided had been extended by the manufacturer thereby causing her “unnecessary stress”. Counsel pointed out that the union has agreed that an email was sent out to all staff informing of the extension and that the email address of the grievor on it was correct. While union counsel suggested that the grievor may not have seen that email, there were no particulars with respect to this grievance. This, submitted counsel, is another case where the grievor files a grievance whenever she is not happy. Counsel referred to her submissions that there is no prima facia case. [109] In replying to the union’s submissions on grievances 31 to 36, counsel acknowledged that grievance 31 alleges violations of articles 3 and 9 and there is a “hook” to the collective agreement. However, she repeated her view of -34 - Bashin with respect to grievances 32 to 36 which only cites article 2, that Bashin does not mean that an arbitrator has jurisdiction over any employment related dispute. The principle that was set out in Bashin, as interpreted by most arbitrators, is that the dispute must explicitly, or at least inferentially, engage a right arising out of the collective agreement and legislation. [110] Counsel submitted that in any event, the Board should not exercise its discretion to extend the time limit for referring grievances 32 to 36 to arbitration. She disagreed with the union counsel’s position that whether there was substantial prejudice to the employer comes into play only if the Board had first concluded that the factors in the Becker Milk and Greater Niagara favor extension. She submitted that in any event, the application of the factors in these grievances, particularly the length of the delay and the absence of any explanation or reason for the delay, should lead the Board to conclude that time limits should not be extended. [111] In re-reply counsel submitted that the Bashin decision of the Supreme Court of Canda and arbitration awards that followed, disposed of any debate that may have previously existed. The Court clearly held that the principle of good faith applies in arbitration proceedings. The current law is that the union no longer needs a hook to the collective agreement for a grievance to be arbitrable. [112] Employer counsel finally referred to the last sentence in article 2 which reads: “It is agreed that these rights are subject only to the provisions of this collective agreement and any other collective agreement to which the parties are subject”. She submitted that this specific management rights clause clearly indicates that the parties intended that the management’s rights are subject only to any restriction in a collective agreement. DECISION [113] Having carefully considered the law and the extensive submissions of counsel, -35 - the Board had determined the motions in the same sequence and groups as they were addressed by counsel. [114] In determining the no prima facie case motions, the Board has applied two important legal principles. First, that facts asserted by the grievor are deemed to be true, and second, to successfully defend against such motions, the grievor is not required to prove the violations alleged. She only has to establish that the facts asserted have the potential of supporting the violations alleged. Whether a breach is proven on a balance of probabilities has to be determined after all of the evidence and submissions of the parties, including any remedial issues, are received at a hearing on the merits. [115] Employer counsel asserted additional facts on many occasions about what others, including managers, did or did not do, or why they did what they did to explain or defend the alleged employer action the facts asserted by the grievor. It will be open to the employer to put in that evidence, if the issue foes to a hearing on the merits. That evidence is not relevant at this state of the proceeding. [116] The union’s particulars for grievances were not set out separately for each of the grievances. Therefore, its particulars for the grievances, including those subsequently withdrawn, are attached to this decision as Appendix A. The union particulars for grievances 31 to 36 which were filed subsequently are attached as Appendix B. [117] The decision in Re Solomon-Smith et al, 2017-0054 (Anderson) is very instructive. The following paragraphs assist in considering many of the particulars provided to support grievances, which the employer argues, do not support a prima facie case. 14. Whether Code based or not, harassment or bullying is concerned with conduct, comment or other action. The question is not whether a complainant believed she was the subject of bullying or harassment. The question is whether a reasonable person, informed of all relevant facts, -36 - would conclude the impugned behavior would constitute harassment or bullying if the perpetrator knew or ought reasonably to have known that it was unwelcome: Grievor at para. 48; Cara Operations Ltd. at para. 17 - 20; and Kinark Child & Family Services, Syl Apps Youth Centre v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 213, 2012 CanLII 97669 (On LA) (Marcotte) pp. 15-17. See also Gauntlett at paras. 18 - 20, holding that statements of belief by the grievor and others as to the motivations of members of management were to be given no weight on a non-suit motion. 15. The Union argues the objective test must be applied from the perspective of a person in the position of the Grievor. I do not find this embellishment of the test useful. On the one hand, the reference to “perspective” suggests the subjective view of the Grievor is relevant at the stage of determining whether or not bullying or harassment has occurred. It is not. On the other, the need to consider the “position of the Grievor” is captured by the requirement to consider all relevant facts. For example, in this case I have borne in mind the fact the Grievor is of the Jewish faith in assessing whether comments about Yom Kippur and Hanukah constituted bullying, harassment or discrimination. [118] The need to assess whether conduct amounts to harassment or bullying, code based or not, objectively, has also been accepted by this Board in Re Cross et al (Misra) cited by arbitrator Anderson in Re Solomon-Smith (supra) at para 46 of the Re Cross et al decision. Arbitrator Misra wrote: The arbitrator in [UFCW Local 1518 v. 55369 BC Ltd., 2007 Carswell BC 3880 (D.L. Larson)] noted that harassment normally involves an element of persistent conduct or a course of activities that involves hostility, importuning, badgering, intimidation or bullying that causes a person distress that is inimical to a safe and positive work environment (para. 31). The exercise of normal management rights does not excuse harassment, and giving directions, evaluating performance and disciplining employees should not be considered harassment in the normal course of events provided that such activities are not carried out in a manner that is abusive, demeaning or hostile, and has a legitimate workplace purpose (para. 33). Not every employment bruise” should be treated as harassment, and Arbitrator Larson noted that it would be unfortunate if a harassment process was “used to vent feelings of minor -37 - discontent or general unhappiness with life in the workplace, so as to trivialize those cases where substantial workplace abuses have occurred” (para. 34) (underlining added) [119] The Board agrees with the question set out in Re Solomon-Smith at para. 14 that is, “whether a reasonable person, informed of all relevant facts, would conclude the impugned behaviour would constitute harassment or bullying, if the perpetrator knew or ought reasonably to have known that it was unwelcome.” That is an appropriate objective test to apply in a no prima facia case or non-suit motion against a grievance alleging harassment and/or bullying. [120] Having regard to the foregoing principles and law established in arbitral jurisprudence, the facts asserted in the grievance forms and the union particulars filed, the law as well as the submission of counsel, the Board turns to the grievances before it. Grievance 1 [121] The Board accepts for purposes of the no prima facia case motion that the grievor may have felt bullied, harassed and targeted, as asserted by her, as a result of her exchanges with the managers described in the particulars. However, those assertions, objective seen, are not capable of supporting the violations asserted. The assertion in paragraph 37 of the particulars is that Ms. Naumenko “started shouting at the grievor”, that she was supposed to be in her office and not at a clinical meeting. Assuming that to be true, that cannot constitute bullying or harassment. There is no information about what Ms. Naumenko shouted. There is no assertion that any abusive or inappropriate language was used. There is no pattern of conduct established either. Similarly, repeated inquiry by Ms. Brouillette about whether the grievor was “okay” and coping, and suggesting she take time off or seek assistance from EAP, are more consistent with empathy on her part than an intent to harass her. -38 - [122] For those reasons, the Board concludes that grievance 1 does not establish a prima facia case and is dismissed. Grievance 2 [123] In contrast, the particulars for grievance 2 assert repeated use of aggressive verbal abuse, including profanity directed at the grievor by YSO D’Orazio. It is asserted that several managers were aware of that. In fact, the grievor informed management that she did not feel safe around YSO D’Orazio. An explanation is warranted as to why the employer ignored her repeated pleas. The facts are potentially capable of establishing that the employer failed in its obligations under articles 3 and 9, to provide the grievor a safe working environment free of harassment and bullying. The no prima facia case motion on grievance 2 is denied. [124] The Board also denies the employer’s mootness motion. The principle in Borowski is not in dispute. However, even if the Board may not be in a position to order that the grievor be returned to work, that does not make the grievance itself moot. I agree with union counsel, that if violations are found, the union may be entitled to seek other remedies including a declaration and damages. Unlike in Re Problate (supra) and Re Mohamed (supra), the employer here has not admitted any wrong doing on its part. Nor has it provided any remedy to the grievor. Therefore, a live issue still exists. [125] Therefore, the Board remains seized with grievance 2. Grievance 3 [126] In addition to articles 2, 3 and 9 of the collective agreement and “WDHP, Human Rights, violence and bullying”, grievance 3 alleges a violation of article COR 7.1, which provides “The present practice for rest periods in each shift shall be maintained”. -39 - [127] I agree with employer counsel that there are no facts particularized as to what the employer did or failed to do, to potentially violate any of the collective agreement provisions or legislation. Union counsel submitted that this grievance was filed due to the employer’s failure to remedy grievance 2 previously filed with respect to the alleged incidents involving YSO D’Orazio. However, the failure to remedy a grievance which the employer has challenged, and had been referred to arbitration cannot by itself constitute an independent violation which is grievable. [128] The Board determines that the no prima facie motion is upheld and grievance 3 is hereby dismissed. Grievance 4 [129] In response to the employer’s no prima facia case motion, union counsel submitted that this grievance was filed because the employer had not responded to the grievor’s pleas that she did not feel safe working with YSO D’Orazio. She was put off work from March 30 to September 16, 2016, by her doctor because she was so anxious and fearful. That state of mind was directly linked to the harassment and bullying she continued to face at work despite her WDHP complaint and grievances. Also, the employer took no action when she brought incidents of misbehaviour by youth. This also negatively impacted her mental health. [130] The grievor has filed grievances with regard to the YSO D’Orazio incidents, as well as about her concerns about the employer’s failure to conform to policies with regard to youth behaviour. These grievances have been referred to arbitration by the Union. For the same reasons as in grievance 3, failure to remedy grievances filed and are before the Board for arbitration cannot be a basis to file and have the Board arbitrate another independent grievance alleging a continuation of the alleged violation. If such grievances are found to -40 - be arbitrable, it would allow an employee who had filed a grievance to file new grievances every day until the Board finally disposes of the previous grievances. When the Board decides the initial grievance, if it is upheld, how long the violation continued, and the resulting impact/posses may be raised by the union at the remedy phase of the hearing. [131] For the same reasons as in grievance 3, grievance 4 is also dismissed on the grounds that it does not establish a prima facia case for the violations alleged. Grievance 5 [132] The primary allegation is one of failure to accommodate the grievor who had been cleared to return to work by her doctor as well as the insurance company. It is alleged that the employer not only refused to allow her to return to work but she was escorted out of the facility in a rude manner by a manager, which the grievor claims intimidated her. Employer counsel submitted that these alleged facts were “not enough” to constitute a prima facie case. [133] Employer counsel argued, in the alternative, that since the grievor had been medically found to be permanently unable to work in a detention facility, and because Cecil Facer was to close down in about one year, the grievance was moot. [134] Union counsel rebutted, stating that the asserted facts could potentially support violations of articles 2, 3 and 9 by the employer’s refusal to accommodate the grievor and by subjecting her to code based and/or persona harassment. [135] Union counsel relied on the following paragraphs of the union’s particulars: 194. The grievor had seen an occupational therapist for approximately two months prior to attending work on June 19. A return to work plan approved by Manulife had the grievor returning to work on June 19. ON June 19, the grievor presented at work at went approximately 06:55 hours. At approximately 0705 hours the grievor -41 - was told by YSM Ron Erwin that she was not allowed to be there and had to leave. 195. The grievor was extremely confused and questioned Mr. Erwin as to why she had to leave, and told him that June 19 was supposed to be my first day back to work. The grievor felt intimidated and bullied. Again Mr. Erwin told the grievor that she was not allowed to be there and told her she had to leave, He told her if I had any questions to call Manulife or to call Derek Goudreau after 0800 hours. 196. The grievor was extremely depressed leaving the institution. She did not know what was going on and could not call Manulife or her doctor until they opened. She was escorted by YSM Ron Erwin to the front door and left the institution. 197. She filed a grievance dated July 19, 2018, in response to this incident, alleging that the Employer by failing to permit her to return to work, and failing to accept her medical information, was in breach of the Ontario Human Rights Code as well as articles 2, 3 and 9 of the Collective Agreement. [136] The Board is of the view that the asserted facts meet the test for a prima facia violation of both failure to accommodate and harassment/bullying. Also, if successful on either count, the grievor could be entitled to remedies, even if she may not be ordered back to work. There is still a live issue, as explained above in the decision, and the grievance is not moot. [137] The Board so finds, and remains seized of grievance 5. Grievance 6 [138] Employer counsel submitted that this grievance does not support any violation of articles 2, 3 or 9, There are no facts asserted as to who discriminated or harassed/bullied her or when that was. She also submitted that there are no details about alleged non-payment of wages for attending a refresher training. Counsel proceeded to submit that documentation and pay records will establish that the grievor was in fact paid for attending the training, a sum greater than that claimed in the grievance. Therefore, there is no live issue, and the grievance is moot. -42 - [139] Union counsel’s rebuttal was limited to the mootness motion. He submitted that by claiming that the grievor had been paid for the training session, it has in effect agreed that the grievor attended the training and was entitled to wages. There is, however, a disagreement as to whether the grievor was paid or not. He did not point to any particulars relating to discrimination, harassment or bullying for the time she spent attending the training. He submitted that if a factual dispute exists a grievance is not moot. [140] There are two issues raised in grievance 6, - discrimination, harassment, bullying and a claim for unpaid wages. There are no specific facts that could be seen as discriminatory or harassing/bullying. It is simply not possible to conclude that a failure to pay wages for a training session, ipso facto constitutes discrimination, harassment or bullying, even if the allegation is viewed in the overall context of all grievances. Therefore, the Board finds that the grievor has not asserted facts to support a discrimination, harassment or bullying on even a prima facia basis. That aspect of the grievance is therefore dismissed. [141] However, I agree with union counsel that the grievor has provided sufficient factual information to enable the employer to defend itself against the claim for unpaid wages. The grievance form itself sets out the dates when the grievor attended the training, who the trainer was, and the amount of the unpaid wages. As union counsel pointed out, by claiming that the grievor was appropriately paid wages, the employer has admitted that she attended and was entitled to wages. The dispute is as to whether grievor was appropriately paid. [142] I also agree with union counsel that the existence of a factual dispute does not make the grievance itself moot. It will be open to the employer to present evidence to establish that the grievance has no merit, when it goes to a hearing on the grievor’s claim. -43 - [143] It follows from the above that the claim of discrimination harassment/bullying in grievance 6 is dismissed for the lack of a prima facia case. The claim for unpaid wages is supported by the asserted facts and establishes a prima facie case. The Board remains seized of that aspect of grievance 6. Grievance 7, 8 and 9 [144] These three grievances were filed on March 29, 2019, and both counsels dealt with them together. Employer counsel pointed out that there are no facts asserted that could possibly establish abuse of management rights, discrimination, harassment or bullying as alleged in all three grievances. There are no particulars as to who did what and when to target the grievor and “revictimize” her as alleged in grievance 8. Similarly there are no facts with respect to grievances 9 as to how the employer failed to respect “policies and procedures related to a respectful workplace”. The policies and procedures in question are not even identified. Employer counsel urged the Board to uphold the employer’s no prima facia case motions on each of the three grievances and dismiss them. [145] Union counsel described grievances 7, 8 and 9 as “a reach back to the previous grievances the grievor had filed”, which the employer had not addressed. He stated that the grievor filed these grievances while off work with health issues as a plea to the employer to deal with her prior grievances, including the harassment and bullying by YSO D’Orazio which caused her significant health issues. Counsel submitted that this plea is a reasonable theory, and the acts are the same as those in the grievances the grievor had filed which remained unresolved. He argued that the Board should dismiss the no prima faci case motions brought against all three grievances. [146] As the Board has ruled in previously the fact that grievances filed are unresolved, but are in the grievance/arbitration process, does not entitle the grievor not to reach back to those grievances and file additional grievances with respect to the same facts. -44 - [147] The Board finds that the grievor has not asserted any facts to support the allegations in grievances 7, 8 and 9. Therefore, the no prima facie motions are held. The grievances are not arbitrable and are hereby dismissed. Grievances 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 25 [148] On March 29, 2019, the grievor filed 18 individual grievances. After the union’s withdrawal of twelve grievances, the above noted grievances remained. The union filed the particulars attached hereto as Appendix A, but did not specify paragraphs that pertain to particular grievances. The particulars were in the form of a continuous story. The Board can only assume that the union is relying on paragraphs 198 to 232 in Appendix A to support all of these grievances. [149] I first turn to grievances 10, 11 and 16, which are based on the grievor’s allegation that the employer’s failure to comply with its policy on MP3 players violated article 9. Although grievances are about breach of a policy the union did not specify what the policy is , or where in such policy is the rule that access to MP3 players is not allowed to youth. [150] However, I took liberty of reviewing the books of documents filed by the union in this proceeding. There were multiple pages with titles of songs (almost all of them Rap or HIP HOP) with the performers’ names. There is no assertion of what songs if any, from that list were accessed by youths or why the lyrics in breach of employer policy. The documents also included lyrics of two songs, which had the word “bitch” and the “F” word repeatedly. However, there is no assertion that any youth were listening to those particular songs. Even if the Board assumes that at least some of the songs youth had access to had profanity or other offensive lyrics, how does that result in a health and safety risk to the grievor? In all of her assertions the grievor’s particulars are about the sexuality, profanity and language offensive to women. There is one assertion that the songs “encourage criminal behaviour”. -45 - [151] The Board has no doubt that the grievor genuinely and strongly believes that such songs are inappropriate for young persons. She would have been upset and distressed that they had access to it. Even if the Board agrees that such songs are inappropriate as the grievor believes, the issue to be determined by the Board is not that. It is whether the employer giving youth access to such songs contrary to its policy could potentially result in the grievor’s safety being put at risk at work. [152] Assuming that facts asserted, as well as additional facts implied to be true, the Board is led to the conclusion that they do not have the potential of supporting a prima facia case. The Board does not agree that the two incidents, in May 2021 and November 2021 when the grievor was injured is proof that the song lyrics had any connection to these injuries. In fact the May incident, even as described in the particulars, was not an assault on the grievor. The grievor was accidentally hit when she intervened to break up a fight between two youths. There are no facts to suggest that there were any assaults or threats, or violence directed at the grievor that had any connection to the access youth had to MP 3 players. While the lyrics may have included vulgar and obscene words, the assertion that they “encouraged violence” is an opinion or conclusion by the grievor, not objectively supportable. [153] The particulars also mention youth using abusive language and yelling at YSO’s including the grievor, although there is no information as to what was said or when. In any event, there is no dispute that misbehaviour by youths is something YSOs regularly face. It is part of there job to deal with that. From all of the particulars, it seems that the grievor’s complaint is that the employer was not disciplining or taking action against youth who misbehave in that manner. The employer has decided to be more lenient in handling that misbehaviour. There is nothing to suggest that the tolerance of abuse and vulgar language by youth did or has potential to expose the grievor or other YSOs to greater safety risks than otherwise. It only shows that the grievor and -46 - management have different opinions on the appropriate way to deal with youth misconduct. [154] For all those reasons, the Board concludes that grievances 10, 11 and 16 are not supported by facts that could potentially establish the violation of the collective agreement alleged. The grievances are hereby dismissed. [155] Grievance 14 alleges violations of articles 2, 3 and 9. The asserted facts are to the effect that a manager sent the grievor an email requesting that she submit an Occurrence Report, and also that the same manager did not provide her a break she requested at 1100 hours on September 13, 2021. She got the break only at 1500 hour There is no information as to what the requested occurrence report was about, or how that request would be a violation of any provision of the collective agreement. Similarly, there are no facts as to why the grievor needed a break at 1100 hours, whether it was an urgency. Nor is there any suggestion that the collective agreement obliges the employer to grant breaks upon request by an employee. [156] The Board concludes that the facts asserted do not, and are not capable of supporting a prima facia case that any of the cited articles could have been violated. The employer’s no prima facia case motion is upheld, and grievance 14 is hereby dismissed. [157] Grievance 15 alleges “harassment and discrimination and states that the employer’s “failure to respect policies and procedures related to a respectful workplace “significantly affects the health and well being” of the grievor and other staff. The policies and procedures alleged to have been not respected are not identified. Assuming that the grievance refers to the WDHP and the workplace violence prevention program, there is no indication as to which provisions in those documents (which formed part of the union’s book of documents) were not respected, and how. -47 - [158] More importantly, the only facts asserted to support the allegation is that a youth reported to her that a manager had told him that “sometimes fights need to happen, so people can learn”. Apart form the fact that the grievor is relying on hearsay reported to her by a youth, the comment by the manager is about fights between youth. It was not an announcement of an official employer policy, but only a single comment made to one youth. There is no explanation how it could increase fighting among youth and put the grievor’s health and safety at risk. In the particulars the comment by the manager to the youth is described as “a threat” to the grievor. If the grievor felt threatened by the comment, it is her own subjective reaction. Objectively it cannot be seen as any threat to the grievor. The employer’s no prima facie motion is upheld and grievance 15 is hereby dismissed. [159] Turning to grievance 17, the facts when accepted as true, could only establish that the employer failed to comply with proper procedure once a youth was found with Fentanyl, a highly potent opioid, in his system, and had not taken precautions to ensure that the youth is administered another drug medication which would have reduced the youth’s craving for drugs. There are no facts to suggest that those failures posed any risk to the grievor’s health and safety. It only establishes that the grievor disagreed with how the employer treated the youth. Assuming that the grievor’s concerns were valid, filing a grievance is simply not available as a means of addressing that concern. The grievance is therefore dismissed on the grounds that the asserted facts do not establish a prima facie case. [160] Grievance 12 alleges “harassment and discrimination”. It is asserted that Mr. Erwin failed to have a meeting with the grievor on August 26 “as per ministry of Labour”, and that another manager “failed to provide her with a safety plan upon her return to work on September 2021 as discussed in a meeting on August 26, 2021. It is also asserted that Mr. Erwin yelled at her. Based on the dates, these are facts asserted in the period the grievor returned to work -48 - following her period of absence due to the injury she suffered in the May 24, 2021, incident when she was hit by a youth. [161] Although union counsel did not draw any specific paragraphs to my attention as pertaining to grievance 12. I have carefully searched the particulars relating to this period. The only paragraph I could link to this grievance is paragraph 205. Based on the statement in the grievance form and these particulars, it is not possible to conclude that the failure to have a back to work meeting, the absence of discussion about the May 24, 2021, incident or lack of concern as to how the incident may have impacted the grievor’s health and safety or could have constituted discrimination or harassment. [162] However, the grievance form also asserts that the Administrator Mr. Erwin yelled at the grievor and called her a liar 3 times on August 26. The particulars do not set out the context in which Mr. Erwin did that. The particulars refer to several “meetings” as well as other exchanges between the grievor and Mr. Erwin. There are no facts as to what Mr. Erwin said, which the grievor has described as “yelling” nor is there any facts as to what led to Mr. Erwin to call the grievor a liar. No doubt, regardless of what caused Mr. Erwin to call the grievor a liar, if true it was not professional conduct for a senior manager. However, in the absence of a context and detail, this incident cannot be considered to be a course of conduct within the definition in the employer’s WDHP policy or arbitral jurisprudence. The facts asserted fall far short of establishing a prima facie violation of articles 3 or 9. The employer’s motion is upheld and grievance 12 is dismissed. [163] Grievance 25 also cites articles 2, 3 and 9, but the allegations are only about health and safety. The form asserts that during training the trainer had stated that a YSO never works alone and that always there are two staff. However, it is stated that at Cecil Facer “staff work alone constantly” and that “staff safety is jeopardized daily”. At paragraph 212 of the particulars it is asserted that on one occasion the grievor’s partner YSO left to relieve another YSO leaving her -49 - alone with the youth. It is alleged that this was contrary to the “always two staff” policy. [164] The Board concludes that the facts asserted lack sufficient detail that enables an objective conclusion that the alleged breach of policy or protocol was prevalent “constantly” or “daily” as concluded by the grievor. The particulars only mention one such situation. That was at best, a dereliction of responsibility on the part of a co-worker to relieve another YSO. There is no assertion that that the coworker acted on management directions or that management was even aware of that happening. The failure by an employee to follow safety rules established by the employer, by itself cannot be held to be a violation by the employer. The Board upholds the no prima facie case motion. Grievance 25 is hereby dismissed. [165] Grievance 30 is about the grievor, being provided rapid COVID tests with expired dates. It is asserted that the employer’s failure to inform her that the manufacturer had extended the expiry date caused the grievor “unnecessary stress”. Union counsel did not point to any particulars in relation to this grievance alleging harassment and health and safety violations. Nor did he make any submissions on this grievance. [166] The facts asserted on this grievance cannot possibly establish a prima facie case for a violation of any collective agreement or legislative provision. It is not asserted that the alleged failure to inform the grievor about the extension of the date of expiry was anything more than an oversight. It is not alleged that the employer deliberately did not inform the grievor, or that this failure was a part of the employer’s pattern of mistreating or harassing her. If the employer had informed her, the stress the grievor claims it caused could have been avoided. In that sense, the stress was “unnecessary”. However, it cannot possibly meet the legal definitions of harassment or discrimination. In the circumstance, the employer’s no prima facie motion succeeds, and grievance 30 is hereby dismissed. -50 - [167] Grievance 31 is one of the 6 discovered by the employer during preparation for this hearing and subsequently referred to arbitration. The Board does not see any relevance of paragraph 233 which describes an observance the grievor made could be abuse of management rights, harassment or discrimination. The balance of the paragraphs detail events that preceded the assault of the grievor by youth G, and the assault that took place on November 23, 2021, in cottage 6. The facts asserted are to the effect that G refused to comply with directions given by YSOs using abusive and foul language repeatedly demanding that arrangements be made for him to make a phone call. The grievor intervened and told G not to speak to staff like that and directed G to go back to his room. As G became increasingly aggressive, the grievor called YSM Johnson. While she was still on the phone G started swearing and yelling at her calling her a “f..ing bitch”, then jumped at her and punched her. [168] Details about the assault and its impact on the grievor are set out in the particulars. The particulars note that the grievor activated a “blue button, and requested that all managers doing nothing to report to cottage 6. Even as several YSMs arrived, G continued directing abuse and profanity, threatening her, including saying “ I don’t care if you are a woman or man. I’ll f…ing get you, you f…ing bitch”. The grievor told several of the YSMs who arrived at the scene that they came too late. [169] Union counsel’s submission was to the effect that this assault was a result of the stance the grievor took on the MP3 player issue. While she was attempting to enforce the policy on MP3 players very strictly, her colleagues and even some managers were not. As a result she was targeted. In dismissing grievances directly based on the allegations that the employer failed to comply with its own policy on MP3 players, the Board notes that there are no facts to show that there was any employer policy prohibiting MP3 music access to youth, or that youth were accessing songs on MP3 players encouraging -51 - violence. What the accepted facts show is that the grievor herself subjectively was of the view that youth at Cecil Facer should not have access to those songs. It was her conclusion that MP3 music is inappropriate for young people. [170] The facts asserted in relation to grievance 31 do not suggest that youth G’s behaviour on November 23, 2021, was in anyway connected to the grievor’s stance on MP3 music. There is no assertion that G had been denied access to MP3 players as result of her opposition or even that G wanted access to MP3 player. However, the asserted facts do show that the abuse and profanity directed at the grievor that day and the assault was triggered by the grievor intervening, when G, who was already angry and had become aggressive, was directing abuse and profanity at her co-workers, and directing him to immediately return to his room. [171] The intervention by the grievor at the time was well intentioned and completely appropriate. G’s reaction to that direction was not appropriate very clearly. However, the issue is whether the management caused or contributed to G’s misbehaviour that day. There are no facts to suggest management was. The grievor believed that the managers arrived too late. However, there are no facts to suggest that they were aware of the situation until after the misconduct and the assault had taken place. There are no facts as to how long after the grievor activated the blue button they arrived, or how they could have earlier and prevented the assault. [172] The Board therefore concludes that while the incident was serious and unfortunate, there are no facts that could establish that there was any action or inaction which could constitute harassment or discrimination on the part of the employer. Therefore, the employer’s no prima facie case motion is upheld. [173] As for the grievor’s concern that the manner in which the employer deals with youth at Cecil Facer is inappropriate and makes the workplace unsafe for staff, -52 - it may be framed as a union grievance which may give the Board jurisdiction. However, the Board does not have jurisdiction to determine that issue in an individual grievance. In an individual grievance an employee must be asserting that his/her rights under the collective agreement or legislation were contravened by the employer. The grievor has failed to assert facts to support such a claim. Grievance 31 is hereby dismissed. [174] That leaves grievances 32 to 36, referred to arbitration and consolidated after the instant proceeding had commenced. While there were no prima facie case motions, in relation to some mootness and abandonment motions also were made. With respect to these grievances, each of them was challenged on the ground that their referral to arbitration were untimely and failed to comply with the mandatory time limit in article 22.6. [175] The timeliness for each of the grievances 32 to 36 are set out in paragraph 55. Union counsel did not dispute the employer’s assertion that the referral of each of these grievances was referred to arbitration well after the deadline in article 22.6.1. He also conceded that the union has not provided any excuse or explanation for the significant delay. [176] Both parties agree that the arbitral jurisprudence is well established that arbitrators have the to extend the time limits in article 22.6.1 at its discretion in certain circumstances. However, they disagreed whether such circumstances exist in these grievances. Submissions were made as to how the principles established in the seminal decisions in Becker Milk (supra), and Greater Niagara apply to grievances 32 to 36. [177] Article 22.6.1 of the collective agreement provides: 22.6.1 If the grievor is not satisfied with the decision of the designated management representative or if he or she does not receive the decision within the specified time, the grievor may apply, through the Union, to the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB) for a hearing of the grievance -53 - within fifteen (15) days of the date he or she received the decision or within fifteen (15) days of the specified time limit for receiving the decision. Article 22.147 provides: 22.14.7 Notwithstanding Article 22.14.6, the GSB has the jurisdiction to apply section 48(16) of the Ontario Labour Relations Act to extend the timelines specified in the collective agreement at all stages of the grievance and arbitration processes. [178] Section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act provides: Except where a collective agreement states that this subsection does not apply, an arbitrator or arbitration board may extend the time for the taking of any step in the grievance procedure under a collective agreement, despite the expiration of the time, where the arbitrator or arbitration board is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for the extension and that the opposite party will not be substantially prejudiced by the extension. [179] In Becker Milk Company, (1978), 19 L.A.C. (2nd) 217 (supra) arbitrator Burkett wrote that the exercise of the equitable discretion vested in on arbitrator by the Labour Relations Act requires a consideration of at least the following 3 factors: 1. The reason for the delay given by the offending party. 2. The length of the delay. 3. The nature of the grievance. He stated that even if the arbitrator concludes tat the offending party was to blame for the delay, “the arbitrator must nevertheless consider the second the third factors referred to above in deciding if reasonable grounds exist for an extension of the time limits”, and that “The purpose of the section is to alleviate against technical bars”. [180] In Greater Niagara General Hospital, (1981), 1 L.A.C. (3d) 1 (Schiff), the arbitrator expanded the factors set out in Becker Milk and listed the following factors: 1. The nature of the grievance -54 - 2. Whether the delay occurred in launching the grievance or at a later stage 3. Whether the grievor was responsible for the delay 4. The reasons for the delay 5. The length of the delay 6. Whether the Employer could reasonably have assumed the grievance had been abandoned. [181] The factors set out in these decisions, in my view, ought not to be applied mechanically. Nor should each factor be assigned weight, so as to make some more important than others, and decide whether the “important” factors apply. All of the facts must be considered together, not in isolation, in making that decision. Also, all factors have to be considered in light of the facts and circumstances of the particular case. [182] Union counsel’s position was that absence or presence of substantial prejudice becomes relevant, only if the arbitrator first decides based on the consideration of the factors that time limits should be extended. The union submitted that at that point, the employer has the burden to prove that extending time based on the factors would result in substantial prejudice to it. The arbitrator should change the decision it had made, only if the employer meets that burden of proof. [183] I disagree with that approach. As I have stated, the issue of substantive prejudice must be assessed globally. The absence of substantial prejudice is made a condition by the words in s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, “will not be substantially prejudiced”. Therefore, consideration of substantial prejudice is very much a part of making the decision, not a consideration that comes into play after the decision to make the extension is made. [184] In considering the nature of grievances, the Board notes that grievance 33 states that the grievor’s human rights were violated by the employer on several -55 - occasions. However, there are no particulars as to who violated, when it was, how her “Human rights” were violated or what those human rights were. [185] Grievance 34 alleges abuse of management rights, harassment and discrimination. It is asserted that the employer discriminated against the grievor because of her disability by having her work for half an hour in maintenance without pay. No further particulars are set out to explain how the non-payment for half hour of wages amounts to harassment or discrimination on the basis of disability. [186] Grievance 35 alleges that the employer discriminated against the grievor by not meeting the timelines for grievance dated October 1, 2020, and not following the Health Productivity Plan process. There are no further particulars. [187] Grievance 36 alleges that since her return to work on July 6, 2020, the grievor’s pay cheques and pension contributions were wrong and she could not understand her pay cheques. It also grieves that the grievor’s vacation credits were inaccurate causing her unnecessary stress. There are no other facts asserted. [188] Union counsel submitted that while the issues in these grievances is not as serious as in a termination grievance, they are not trivial either. He suggested that they fall in the middle of the range of seriousness. However, merely because the grievor used the terms harassment, discrimination and human rights, the Board cannot accept that those grievances are about harassment, discrimination or human rights. The grievor has either not asserted any facts about any conduct by management that may properly be described in that manner, or has set out some facts which cannot possibly come within those terms, as defined in the arbitral decisions. Grievance 36 is only about incorrect pay, pension contributions and vacation credits. The Board, therefore, -56 - concludes that grievances 32 to 36 fall at the low end of the spectrum of seriousness. [189] The employer did not dispute that factors 2 and 3 in Niagara General Hospital, that is that the breach of timeline occurred at the point of referral to arbitration and not the filing of the grievance, and that the grievor was not responsible for that delay favour extension of the time limits. [190] However, the Board has concluded that the factor, “nature of the grievance”, does not favour extension because the grievances fall at the low end of the spectrum of seriousness. Similarly, factor 4, the reason for the delay, stands against the Board’s exercise of jurisdiction to extend the time limit. Union counsel conceded that the union has not offered any reason or explanation for the delay. He also did not dispute that the referral of these grievances were delayed significantly. Therefore, factor 5 operates against a decision to extend time. [191] As for factor 6, the Board notes that these grievances were referred to arbitration even after long delays, only because the employer brought to the union’s attention that there were stale grievances which had not been referred to arbitration. One could not help but wonder whether these grievances would have been referred to arbitration at all, if the employer had not brought them to the union’s attention, which it was not legally obliged to do. In the circumstances, the employer was entitled to reasonably assume that the grievances had been abandoned. [192] In Re Robbins 2013-0526 (Link). The Board made the following review of the law which is very useful: [31] The starting point for the determination of whether a legal decision- maker, operating under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, should exercise her or his jurisdiction to relieve against an untimely filed or advanced grievance is the 1982 ruling by Arbitrator Schiff in Greater -57 - Niagara General Hospital, supra. His award has become the touchstone for assessing timeliness claims in Ontario. Building upon an earlier seminal award on timeliness by Arbitrator Burkett in Re Becker Milk, supra, Arbitrator Schiff laid out six interrelated factors to assess the worthiness of a request to relieve against the time limits in a collective agreement so as to dismiss a grievance on the basis that it is untimely, and to not hear and decide the matter on its merits: i. The nature of the grievance – The more significant the issue is to the parties – such as a termination or the imposition of serious discipline, or a vital collective agreement interpretation – the greater the weight that should be given to an extension. A matter of less significance will be accorded less weight. ii. Whether the delay occurred at the launch of the grievance or at some later point in the process – If the delay occurred with a failure to initiate the grievance within the timelines, the employer will not learn what the grievor alleges nor have an opportunity to secure its own position. A prejudice caused by the failure to adhere to time limits may not be as serious to the employer if the delay occurred later in the process. iii. Whether the grievor was responsible for the delay – A stronger presumption against any timeliness relief would exist if the grievor bore sole or primary responsibility for the delay. Notwithstanding this, if the responsibility for the delay fell entirely or largely on the union, this would not become a positive feature in favour of granting the relief. Rather, it would more likely have the effect of neutralizing the factor. iv. The reason(s) for the delay – A finding of bad faith by the party that failed to file or advance the grievance would be a considerable mark against providing relief. Negligence, carelessness or disregard for the time limits would be less unacceptable, but still a matter of some concern. v. The length of the delay – All things being equal, the longer the delay, then the greater the onus on the union and/or the grievor for providing a credible reason to explain the delay. vi. Whether the employer could reasonably have assumed that the grievance had been abandoned – Union inaction that lulls an employer into a false sense of security may be given a weighty factor. This goes to the prejudice that an employer may face: it may well be lead to believe that no grievance is forthcoming or that the matter has been implicitly withdrawn by the union, and it may not take steps to protect its position, such as preserving memory, protecting evidence or marshalling arguments. -58 - [32] In addition to this very helpful list of factors from Greater Niagara Regional Hospital, subsequent rulings on timeliness have issued some useful observations that have enriched the analysis into this question: • The sophistication of the grievor, and her or his familiarity with the grievance process, can be an element to be considered. If the grievor is, or had been, a local union officer, or had previously filed grievances, this may be a factor against extending time limits: Donwood Institute and OPSEU (1997), 60 L.A.C. (4th) 367 (Brandt). Conversely, a grievor who had never filed a grievance before, and who depended on the union for guidance, may result in a more lenient approach towards timelines: Ontario (MCSCS) (Brennan), supra. • Arbitrators differ as to the significance of an initial failure to grieve unchallenged prior discipline which was used to justify a subsequent termination, based on the principles of progressive discipline. Some arbitrators have held that unchallenged prior discipline cannot be reopened merely because the grievor is now facing termination based in part on the prior record. There must be other, persuasive reasons to justify timeliness relief: Ontario (MCSCS) (McClelland), supra. Other arbitrators have said that unchallenged prior discipline which creates a ‘serious impact’ on the grievor requires the employer to demonstrate ‘real prejudice’ in order to thwart the operation of s. 48 (16). Real prejudice amounts to a course of action that would not otherwise have been taken and it must be a course of action that cannot be reversed without harm to the employer: Vale Inco Ltd, supra. This latter observation is broadly consistent with the requirement in s. 48 (16) that the prejudice to the employer has to be substantial. • A three month delay is not a modest delay, but nor is it, by itself, an intolerable length of time. While no hard-and-fast rule creating a bright red line based on the length of the delay exists, or should exist, given the other factors at play, requests for a time limit extension in this time range have been turned down – Ontario (MCSCS) (McClelland); British Columbia Public Service Agency, supra – and, conversely, have been allowed to proceed in order to be heard on their merits: Liquor Control Board of Ontario (Brennan), supra. To be sure, arbitrators have dismissed grievances when the timeliness breaches had been shorter than three months – Helen Henderson Care Centre, supra; and West Fraser Electro/Mechanical Ltd., supra – and permitted time extensions when the breach far exceeded three months: Re City of Toronto and CUPE, Local 43 (1990), 17 L.A.C. (4th) 420 (Springate); and Re Ferranti Packard Transformers Ltd. and USWA, Local 5788 (1993), 36 L.A.C. (4th) 307 (Haefling). • Unions and employees owe a general obligation of due diligence to employers and the industrial relations process in ensure the timely filing and advancement of grievances: (Ontario (MCSCS) (Mazara). However, this must be balanced with the long-standing industrial -59 - relations rule that, as much as possible, workplace differences should be resolved on their substance rather than on technical or procedural issues: Blouin Drywall Contractors Ltd. and UBC (1975), 8 O.R. (2d) 103 (C.A.); Vale Inco Ltd. While the ultimate legal source governing the issue of timeliness in Ontario is s. 48 (16), adjudicators should pay attention to the intentions of the parties, as expressed by the language governing time limits in the collective agreement. If the parties have chosen mandatory language, even if they have decided not to preclude the operation of s. 48 (16), this should be a consideration in the decision-making: (Ontario (MCSCS) (Mazara); Liquor Control Board of Ontario (Gamble), supra; Helen Henderson Care Centre. … [37] I have carefully considered the competing factors and considerations provided in the authorities presented to me. In particular, I have paid attention to the ruling by Vice-Chair Brown in Liquor Control Board of Ontario (Brennan), which comes closest to the facts in our case and which also involved a timeliness issue between the Employer and the Union. In Brennan, the Employer imposed a three day suspension on the grievor. The grievor and the Union did not file a grievance against the suspension for 11 ½ weeks after the expiry of the time limits. The grievor was subsequently terminated, with the Employer relying in part upon the unchallenged three-day suspension as part of the disciplinary record. The failure to file the suspension grievance in a timely fashion was found to be the responsibility of the Union (due to a careless misunderstanding as to whether a grievance had been initially filed within the time limits), rather than the grievor, who was unsophisticated with respect to the grievance process. The Employer did not contend that it would be substantially prejudiced by an extension. [38] In the circumstances, Vice-Chair Brown exercised his statutory discretion and extended the period of time for filing the grievance. I note that the three-day suspension in Brennan is considerably shorter than the 15 day suspension in our present case. The mandatory collective agreement language in Article 27 in Brennan is the same language that exists in the current version of the agreement. The length of the delay in Brennan was about a month shorter than our case, which is a notable, but not a large, difference. One pertinent distinction between the cases is that the Union in Brennan presented an explanation for the delay, a factor missing in our present case. [39] The other authority that was cited to me involving the present parties is Liquor Control Board of Ontario (Gamble), authored by Vice-Chair Owen Gray. Gamble is a thoroughly reasoned ruling that is a model of analysis on the issue of timeliness. However, it can be distinguished from our present case via one significant fact: the delay in filing the grievance in Gamble was two years, compared to our three and a half months. Vice- -60 - Chair Gray held that the length of the delay was simply too great, notwithstanding the lack of demonstrable prejudice that would be suffered by the Employer, to warrant relief under s. 48 (16). He stated that reasonable grounds to relieve against a delay of this length did not exist in Gamble. … [45] First, the two fundamental factors that are provided for in s. 48 (16) – whether there are reasonable grounds for an extension and whether the employer would be substantially prejudiced by an extension – favour the granting of an extension of the time limits. The reasonable grounds in this case include the length and seriousness of the industrial discipline involved (i.e., 15 days), the non-involvement of the grievor in the delay, and the fact that the length of the delay – while a matter of genuine concern at three and a half months – is within a range that has been accepted, all other things being equal, in other comparable arbitration decisions. As well, I am not persuaded that the Employer would be substantially prejudiced by an extension. In particular, it is apparent that the Employer would not face difficulties in presenting evidence and documents, summoning witnesses, or encountering decayed memories if it would be required to justify its suspension decision before this Board. [193] Considering all of the facts and circumstance relating to the grievances and the law the Board has no hesitation in concluding that no reasonable grounds exist overall for the Board to exercise its authority under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act to extend time limits. [194] Similarly, the Board is convinced that it would be reasonable for it to assume, given the length of the delays that an extension of time limits would substantially prejudice the employer. In any event, there are facts before the Board to establish that prejudice will actually result. The employer asserted, and the union did not dispute, that several individuals, including members of management, who had a role with regard to the subject matter of these grievance are no longer employed with the employer, and that it may not be able to consult with them or to call them as witnesses in defending against the allegations made in the grievances. -61 - [195] The Board must also have regard to the agreement of the parties expressed on article 22.1 of the collective agreement, subject of course to section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, that grievances should be resolved as quickly as possible. Extending time limits in the circumstances of these grievances, would be to act against the intention jointly expressed in that article. [196] For all those reasons, the Board declines to exercise jurisdiction under S. 48(16). Grievances 32 to 36 are hereby dismissed. Given that disposition the Board need not deal with the other preliminary motions raised by the employer. [197] Therefore, the Board remains seized with grievances 2, 5 and 6 as indicated. All other grievances are dismissed. The Board remains seized with grievances pursuant to the preliminary motions made by the employer. Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 31st day of May 2024. “Nimal Dissanayake” Nimal Dissanayake, Arbitrator -62 - APPENDIX A UNION’S STATEMENT OF PARTICUALRS Please find below the Union’s particulars in the above-noted grievance for the purpose of arbitration. The union reserves its right to add to and/or amend these particulars, in particular, to any further documents or information that comes to our attention, including production from the employer. These particulars are provided on a without prejudice basis. In no way, does the Union bind itself to any of the allegations, positions, and/or defenses that are contained within or may be inferred from this document. We reserve the right to modify, change, alter or add to these particulars, allegations, positions and/or defenses. These Particulars concern 30 grievances spanning over a period of 7 years. They are as follows: 1. Grievance 2015-0618-0013, dated July 15, 2015, alleges the Employer violated the Grievor’s rights under Articles 2 (Management Rights), 3 (Discrimination/Employment Equity), and (Health and Safety and Video Display Terminals) of the Collective Agreement, the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy and the Ontario Human Rights Code, when management harassed, bullied and discriminated against the Grievor by disciplining her without a union representative present. 2. Grievance 2015-0618-0014, dated July 15, 2015, alleges the Employer violated the Grievor’s rights under Articles 2 (Management Rights), 3 (Discrimination/Employment Equity), and 9 (Health and Safety and Video Display Terminals) of the Collective Agreement, the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy and the Ontario Human Rights Code, when the Grievor was subjected to violence and bullying by a co-worker when she sought relief for a bathroom 3. Grievance 2016-0618-0003, dated April 7, 2016, alleges the Grievor’s rights under Articles 2 (Management Rights), 3 (Discrimination/Employment Equity), 7.1 (Pay Administration) and 9 (Health and Safety and Video Display Terminals) under the Collective Agreement were violated when the Grievor’s employer singled her out and disciplined her discriminatorily, resulting in a poisoned work environment. 4. Grievance 2016-0618- 0004, dated April 7, 2016, alleges the Employer violated the Grievor’s rights under Articles 2 (Management Rights), 3 (Discrimination/Employment Equity), and 9 (Health and Safety and Video Display Terminals) of the Collective Agreement, the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy and the Ontario Human Rights Code when her employer failed to protect her from violence and bullying by a coworker. 5. 6. Grievance 2018-0618- 0019, dated July 19, 2018 alleges the employer failed to accept the Grievor’s medical documentation and refused to allow her to return to work on June 19, 2019. 7. Grievance 2019-0618-0003 dated January 24, 2019 alleges the Employer has violated the Grievor’s rights pursuant to Article 2 (Management Rights), 3 (Discrimination/Employment Equity), and 9 (Health and Safety and Video Display Terminals) of the Collective Agreement, the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy and the -63 - Ontario Human Rights Code when its employees harassed and discriminated against her and when we was not paid for her time attending a training session at work. 8. Grievance 2019-0618-0002 dated March 29, 2019 alleges that the Employer has engaged in an abuse of management rights, and has violated the Grievor’s rights pursuant to Article 2 (Management Rights), 3 (Discrimination/Employment Equity), and 9 (Health and Safety and Video Display Terminals) of the Collective Agreement, the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy and the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Grievor alleges that the Employer discriminated against her on the basis of her disability. 9. 7. Grievance 2019-0618-0004 dated March 29, 2019 alleges that the Employer has engaged in an abuse of management rights, and has harassed, bullied, discriminated and singled her out because of past grievances. The Grievor states because her previous grievances are not dealt with, she has been targeted and re-victimized by the employer. 8. 9. Grievance 2019-0618-0005 dated March 29, 2019 alleges that the Employer has engaged in a abuse of management rights, harassment and discrimination. The Grievor believes that the Employer has violated Article 2 (Management Rights), 3 (Discrimination/Employment Equity), and 9 (Health and Safety and Video Display Terminals) of the Collective Agreement, the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy and the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Grievor alleges that the Employer’s failure to respect the workplace policies and procedures related to a respectful workplace has had a significant repercussion on her health and well-being. 10. 11. Grievance 2021-0618-0005 dated September 19, 2021 alleges the Employer has violated the Grievor’s rights pursuant to Article 2 (Management Rights), 3 (Discrimination/Employment Equity), and 9 (Health and Safety and Video Display Terminals) of the Collective Agreement, the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy and the Ontario Human Rights Code and further, that the employer has engaged in an abuse of management rights, harassment and discrimination. As reflected in the grievance form, management was aware of the unauthorized used of Netflix account in room 7 for movie programs, contrary to the Netflix’s Terms of Use which states that its used is restricted to personal and non- commercial use. The Grievor believes that the inconsistent enforcement of the rules and the display of inappropriate content on the employer’s various programing platform has led to some staff to become the target of physical assault. 12. 10. Grievance 2021-0618-0006 dated September 19, 2021 alleges the Employer has violated the Grievor’s rights pursuant to Article 2 (Management Rights), 3 (Discrimination/Employment Equity), and 9 (Health and Safety and Video Display Terminals) of the Collective Agreement, the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy and the Ontario Human Rights Code when it failed to deal with ongoing issues related to the implication of the unauthorized use of MP3s and its inappropriate content for the Grievor’s health and safety. The Grievor alleges that in the presence of the Youth Service Manager she was threatened on 3 occasions on August 25 and August 26. The employer did not show any concern or take any steps to ensure the Grivor’s workplace was free of harassments and threats. 11. -64 - 12. Grievance 2021-0618-0007 dated September 19, 2021 has violated the Grievor’s rights pursuant to Article 2 (Management Rights), 3 (Discrimination/Employment Equity), and 9 (Health and Safety and Video Display Terminals) of the Collective Agreement, the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy and the Ontario Human Rights Code, when an administrator, Ron Erwin, yelled at her and called her a liar 3 times on August 26, 2021. Further, the Grievor alleges that the employer’s agents, YSM JR Chevrete and Terry Labbe, failed to devise and provide the Grievor with a safety plan to return to work on September 8, 2021 as previously had been discussed on August 26. The Grievor alleges that the employer’s lack of care and accountability has put her safety in jeopardy by creating and encouraging a poisonous work environment and by inflicting harassment and discrimination against her. 13. 14. Grievance 2021-0618-0008 dated September 19, 2021 the Grievor alleges that the employer engaged in abuse of management rights, and has violated the Grievor’s rights pursuant to Article 2 (Management Rights), 3 (Discrimination/Employment Equity), and 9 (Health and Safety and Video Display Terminals) of the Collective Agreement, the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy and the Ontario Human Rights Code when the employer’s agent, YSO JR Chevrette, returned the confiscated MP3 back to the youth, containing songs and lyrics that were highly inappropriate. 15.Grievance 2021-0618-0009 dated September 19, 2021 the Grievor alleges that the employer engaged in abuse of management rights, and has violated the Grievor’s rights pursuant to Article 2 (Management Rights), 3 (Discrimination/Employment Equity), and 9 (Health and Safety and Video Display Terminals) of the Collective Agreement, the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy and the Ontario Human Rights Code when an employer’s agent, YSM JR Chevrette, harassed and discriminated against on August 25 and August 26, 2021 and refused her a break or early relief from duties on September 13, 2021. As well, on September 17, 2021 the Grievor was again refused a break and was told to leave after her equipment and keys were taken away by another member of the management, Brian Bascome. 16. Grievance 2021-0618-0010 dated September 19, 2021 that the employer engaged in abuse of management rights, and has violated the Grievor’s rights pursuant to Article 2 (Management Rights), 3 (Discrimination/Employment Equity), and 9 (Health and Safety and Video Display Terminals) of the Collective Agreement, the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy and the Ontario Human Rights Code when the Grievor learned that agents of the employer, YSM JR Chevrette, had told a youth that “sometimes fights need to happen so ppl learn” and thereby encouraging and creating an unsafe workplace and poisonous work environment for the Grievor and other staff members. 17. Grievance 2021-0618-0011 dated September 19, 2021 dated September 19, 2021 that the employer engaged in abuse of management rights, and has violated the Grievor’s rights pursuant to Article 2 (Management Rights), 3 (Discrimination/Employment Equity), and 9 (Health and Safety and Video Display Terminals) of the Collective Agreement, the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy when the Grievor learned that after she had removed an MP3 from in possession of a youth inmate, and handed the MP3 to a member of management on the promise that the device would not be returned to the youth, the device was in fact returned. The Grievor believes that member of the management at the workplace are all aware of the workplace policy violation which prohibits the use of the device, yet they are failing to enforce the policy. 18.Grievance 2021-0618-0012 dated September 19, 2021 that the employer engaged in abuse of management rights, and has violated the Grievor’s rights pursuant to Article 2 (Management -65 - Rights), 3 (Discrimination/Employment Equity), and 9 (Health and Safety and Video Display Terminals) of the Collective Agreement, the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy and the Ontario Human Rights Code when the Grievor was made aware that on September 14, 2021 the employer was informed of a youth having fentanyl in his system. Contrary to the workplace policy, the employer failed to isolate the youth and did not perform a search of the institution. Further, the Grievor questions as to why the employer did not perform medical procedures to ensure the safety of the youth in their care. 19.Grievance 2021-0618-0013 dated September 19, 2021 that the employer engaged in abuse of management rights, and has violated the Grievor’s rights pursuant to Article 2 (Management Rights), 3 (Discrimination/Employment Equity), and 9 (Health and Safety and Video Display Terminals) of the Collective Agreement, the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy and the Ontario Human Rights Code as the grievor believes the proposal for a music studio is not needed. The Grievor believes that the youth in their care is in need of other programming including anger management, psychological and counselling services, chaplin and aboriginal services, etc. 20. Grievance 2021-0618-0014 dated September 19, 2021 that the employer engaged in abuse of management rights, and has violated the Grievor’s rights pursuant to Article 2 (Management Rights), 3 (Discrimination/Employment Equity), and 9 (Health and Safety and Video Display Terminals) of the Collective Agreement, the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy and the Ontario Human Rights Code as the Grievor believes that the management abuses staff and its the internal investigation by the employer is unjustifiable. 21.Grievance 2021-0618-0015 dated September 19, 2021 that the employer engaged in abuse of management rights, and has violated the Grievor’s rights pursuant to Article 2 (Management Rights), 3 (Discrimination/Employment Equity), and 9 (Health and Safety and Video Display Terminals) of the Collective Agreement, the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy and the Ontario Human Rights Code as the Grievor believe when the employer performs searches, the results of the search are not logged or recorded, and not shared with staff. 22.Grievance 2021-0618-0016 dated September 19, 2021 that the employer engaged in abuse of management rights, and has violated the Grievor’s rights pursuant to Article 2 (Management Rights), 3 (Discrimination/Employment Equity), and 9 (Health and Safety and Video Display Terminals) of the Collective Agreement, the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy and the Ontario Human Rights Code when it chose to ignore employees’ safety concerns. The Grievor alleges that on September 18, 2021 several employees were injuries at work but agents of the employer did not attend the work site to address ongoing safety issues. The employer does not seek or allow any input from employees in implementing safety protocols, and hence puts employee and youth at risk by ignoring their concerns. 23.. Grievance 2021-0618-0017 dated September 19, 2021 alleges that the employer’s agent and recreational officer neglects his duties and underperforms his job responsibility. The Grievor alleges that the office in question only runs music and movie programing and plays music on his MPs instead of performing his duties. 24.Grievance 2021-0618-0018 dated September 19, 2021 alleges that the employer engaged in abuse of management rights, and has violated the Grievor’s rights pursuant to Article 2 (Management Rights), 3 (Discrimination/Employment Equity), and 9 (Health and Safety and Video Display Terminals) of the Collective Agreement when it does not train its staff and employees -66 - about the side effect of medications that youth inmate use under their care. The Grievor is concerns that the youth inmates are highly medicated and are becoming dysfunctional. 25. Grievance 2021-0618-0019 dated September 19, 2021 that the employer engaged in abuse of management rights, and has violated the Grievor’s rights pursuant to Article 2 (Management Rights), 3 (Discrimination/Employment Equity), and 9 (Health and Safety and Video Display Terminals) of the Collective Agreement, the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy and the Ontario Human Rights Code when it bullied, harassed and discriminated against the Grievor in the course of her employment. 26.Grievance 2021-0618-0020 dated September 19, 2021 that the employer engaged in abuse of management rights, and has violated the Grievor’s rights pursuant to Article 2 (Management Rights), 3 (Discrimination/Employment Equity), and 9 (Health and Safety and Video Display Terminals) of the Collective Agreement, when the Grievor does not mandate that all employees should be paired up during their shift. The Grievor believes that staff at CFYC, unlike staff at RMYC, work alone and this can lead to a risk to the safety of employees. The Grievor alleges that upon her return and retraining in 2018, she was told that no employee should be working alone. 26. Grievance 2021-0618-0021 dated September 19, 2021 alleges the employer engaged in abuse of management rights, and has violated the Grievor’s rights pursuant to Article 2 (Management Rights), 3 (Discrimination/Employment Equity), and 9 (Health and Safety and Video Display Terminals) of the Collective Agreement, the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy, when, as the Grievor contents, it knowingly endangered staff and youth by placing members of two rival groups in the same unit and expecting employees to be able to keep these inmates apart and safe. 27. Grievance 2021-0618-0022 dated September 19, 2021 alleges the employer engaged in abuse of management rights, and has violated the Grievor’s rights pursuant to Article 2 (Management Rights) as the employer does not have an inventory to keep track of and account for everything at the workplace. The Grievor believes that as a secure custody and detention center, the employer ought to ensure that everything should be accounted for. 28. Grievance 2021-0618-0002 dated November 12, 2021 alleges employer engaged in abuse of management rights contrary to Article 2 (Management Rights) of the Collective Agreement. The Grievor indicates that the employer has not addressed ongoing workplace issues previously expressed on grievances on September 19, 2021. 29. Grievance 2021-0618-0003 dated November 12, 2021 alleges employer engaged in abuse of management rights contrary to Article 2 (Management Rights) of the Collective Agreement. The Grievor believes that the calculation of her vacation credits is inaccurate and would like to find out the amount of vacation she is owed. 30. Grievance 2021-0618-0004 dated November 12, 2021 alleges employer engaged in abuse of management rights contrary to Article 2 (Management Rights) of the Collective Agreement. The Grievor believes that she experienced discrimination when the employer failed to warn her about the extension of the expiry date of some COVID-19 testing kits. Background: 31. Sonya Rizzo began working as a Correctional Officer (now titled Youth Services Officer) at Cecil Facer Youth Centre on June 12, 2000. -67 - 32. The Grievor had been off sick starting March 30, 2016. Stress Leave April 30, 2014. 33. While the Grievor was off, she was required to bring doctor’s notes to work every three to four weeks. The notes were handed to Youth Service Manager, Ms. Naumenko who frequently suggested the work of Youth Service Officer might not be appropriate for the Grievor. Ms. Naumenko also suggested the Grievor take psych medication as she had herself, and suggested the Grievor ask her doctor to write a note saying the Grievor was incapable of performing her job. This greatly added to the Grievor’s stress levels. Grievor’s Return to Work from Stress Leave October 27, 2014 34. After six months of treatment and rest, the Grievor’s family doctor cleared her to return to work on a gradual basis. While she returned to full-time duties, she was to work day shifts only. This accommodation remains in place. 35. Upon the Grievor’s return to work there was no Health and Productivity Plan. Ms. Naumenko was the manager for HPP at the time and was off sick. No other manager administrated the program to facilitate the Grievor’s return to work. Ms. Naumenko’s Return to Work December 2014 36. Upon Ms. Naumenko’s return from her sick leave and, after the Grievor had been back to work for 2 months, there was a scheduled meeting with the Grievor and Ms. Naumenko to set up the Grievor’s HPP plan. 37. At the time the meeting was scheduled, the Grievor also had a scheduled clinical meeting. When the Grievor did not show up for her meeting with Ms. Naumenko, Ms. Naumenko called the Grievor twice and paged her once within the course of 20 minutes. The Grievor was unable to respond to the phone calls and pages immediately, as she was in a clinical meeting. The Grievor eventually responded after excusing herself from the meeting. She told Ms. Naumenko the reason she had been unresponsive. Ms. Naumenko started shouting at the Grievor that they had had an appointment and that the Grievor was supposed to be in her office, not a clinical meeting. 38. The Grievor hung up the phone and proceeded to Deputy Superintendent Louise Williams’ office to report that she felt harassed and bullied by Ms. Naumenko. Absenteeism Meeting Dec 10, 2014 39. The Grievor received a letter from Louise Williams, Acting Deputy Administrator, to discuss the Grievor’s absenteeism. Ms. Williams and the Grievor were the only ones present at this meeting. The dates characterized as absences were dates that were within the times the Grievor was on sick leave. The Grievor felt that she was being attacked and targeted for having been off sick. Grievor Harassed for Smoking Outside of Designated Area January 30, 2015 40. On January 30, 2015 at approximately 1300hrs, the Grievor asked Dave Lewis, Youth Services Manager, if she could go outside for a smoke break. Mr. Lewis said to go ahead. The Grievor went outside and saw there was an information picket at the entrance of the parking lot and that Union President Brian Smith was there. 41. The Grievor approached Mr. Smith about toques she had heard the union was giving away. Mr. Smith informed the Grievor he did not have any toques with him, but would get the Grievor one soon. The Grievor greeted coworkers who were also outside, stopped at her van and got some gum, -68 - then returned inside the main building. The Grievor was still smoking the same cigarette she had lit when she first exited the main building. The Grievor estimates she was outside for no more than 15 minutes. 42. As the Grievor approached the main building, Dave Lewis was at the front doors. He asked the Grievor where she had gone. The Grievor said she had been outside. Mr. Lewis then asked the Grievor “where exactly?” The Grievor told Mr. Lewis that she went outside, noticed the information picket, walked over, asked Brian Smith for a toque, walked back and stopped at her van to get gum and then back in. 43. Mr. Lewis then told the Grievor she had not been in the designated smoking area and therefore would need to write herself up. The Grievor questioned why she had to write herself up. Mr. Lewis told the Grievor he had already told all staff that they were not to go out to the information picket. The Grievor informed Mr. Lewis that he had failed to tell her. 44. The Grievor then called Union President Brian Smith and informed him of the situation. Mr. Smith advised the Grievor not to write herself up and that he would be calling Mr. Lewis. 45. Sometime after, Mr. Lewis called the Grievor into the staff lounge and told her he was ordering her to write herself up. The Grievor proceeded to comply with Mr. Lewis’ order. Mr. Smith eventually spoke to Superintendent Claude St. Jean on the Grievor’s behalf and the situation was resolved. This incident showcased management’s harassing behaviours towards the Grievor. Grievor Works Shift with No Support from Management April 12, 2015 46. On Sunday April 12th, 2015 the Grievor worked a shift with no back-up from management. The Grievor submitted an Occurrence Report on this day, as well as a suicide watch observation form. Meeting with YSO, Jen Brouillette re: Occurrence Report and Leaves of Absence. April 15, 2015 47. On the Grievor’s first shift back since she had handed in her occurrence report on April 12, 2015, the Grievor entered YSM’ Jen Brouillette office to discuss some issues and concerns that had arisen over the weekend. 48. YSM Brouillette told the Grievor she had to speak to her about the Occurrence Report she had written on April 12th and Leaves of Absence (LOA’s). The Grievor did not have time to speak then. The Grievor asked YSM Brouillette whether this talk was disciplinary and whether the Grievor needed a union representative. YSM Brouillette said “No”. The Grievor then left the office and continued working. Grievor’s Talk with YSM Brouillette re: Occurrence Reports, Breaks and UPL’s - Ms. Brouillette Repeatedly Inquires about Grievor’s Mental Health April 16, 2015 49. YSM Brouillette approached the Grievor as she was exiting the front doors for a smoke and asked if she could join the Grievor. The Grievor had been previously informed by Ms. Brouillette that she did not need union representation when they spoke about the April 12, 2015 Occurrence Report and that the conversation would not be disciplinary. As such, the Grievor had no problem with Ms. Brouillette joining her outside. 50. When they arrived in the parking lot, Ms. Brouillette raised the issues of the Grievor’s Occurrence Reports and breaks. Ms. Brouillette informed the Grievor that, per the Collective Agreement, the Grievor is not entitled to breaks. She said that rather, the Grievor “was entitled to relief as operational needs could accommodate and debriefing, if need be.” The Grievor responded, -69 - “So you’re saying if we are short-staffed due to mismanagement, I may not be allowed a smoke break during a 12-hour shift?” Ms. Brouillette responded, “Yes; that’s right.” 51. Ms. Brouillette then said to the Grievor, “Are you okay? I need to know if you’re okay.” Ms. Brouillette then said, “I noticed you have used 14 UPLs so far this year, from 1500 to 1900 hours.” Ms. Brouillette then asked the Grievor, “Do you do this to cope?” The Grievor responded, “I do whatever I need to do to get by day-by-day. I know I haven’t used 14 UPLs from 1500 to 1900 this year.” The Grievor then told Ms. Brouillette that she knew she had taken three 8-hour shift UPLs during the March break and that she had used some 4-hour blocks, but that she had not used 14 of them. 52. Ms. Brouillette asked the Grievor again if she had been using these four hours off 12-hour shifts “to cope” and asked again if the Grievor “was okay.” The Grievor informed her that she was okay, that she came to work to do her job and that just because others had not been doing their jobs did not mean there was something wrong with the Grievor. 53. Ms. Brouillette then explained that “This is the way the Ministry has gone.” The Grievor went on to explain that she would not remain silent when things were happening that were wrong. Ms. Brouillette said, “This is the way we have to do things; this is the way the Ministry has chosen to go.” The Grievor expressed her concerns about the way the institution was being run, that she had concerns about the way things were being handled on the weekend and that it was very difficult for the Grievor to do her job. The Grievor told Ms. Brouillette that she had absolutely no help from Managers Lewis and Labbe on the weekend and that she felt she had no tools left in her toolbox. The Grievor also informed Ms. Brouillette that the two Residents who had caused the problems on the weekend could easily have caused a major disturbance that day. 54. Ms. Brouillette asked the Grievor again if she was okay. The Grievor responded that she was and asked Ms. Brouillette why she kept asking her if she was okay. Ms. Brouillette said “There is nothing wrong with going to your doctors and telling them you need a break.” The Grievor informed Ms. Brouillette that there was nothing wrong with her and that she had no reason to go see her doctor. The Grievor did express that it had been extremely difficult doing her job as there did not seem to be any consequences for the Residents. The Grievor also told Ms. Brouillette that she had been at Cecil Facer for almost 15 years and never had she felt as deprived of breaks as she did at that time. The Grievor said she had been smoking her whole career and had never had problems getting breaks before. Ms. Brouillette responded, “This is the way it is.” 55. The Grievor then asked Ms. Brouillette about the process for lodging a complaint about a breach of the Grievor’s rights. Ms. Brouillette responded, “To your immediate supervisor, which is me or you can call EAP”. The Grievor asked Ms. Brouillette, “What does EAP have to do with anything?” and repeated that she had a right to breaks. Ms. Brouillette repeated, “This is the way it is.” 56. Ms. Brouillette then went on to suggest, “Maybe if you go to your doctors and tell them you can no longer do your job, you could probably get health re-assigned doing something else.” The Grievor responded, “I was HPP for five years; I know how health re-assignments work.” 57. When the Grievor mentioned her Occurrence Report from the previous weekend, Ms. Brouillette said something to the effect of: “Don’t worry about what’s going on in there; I’m concerned about you. Are you okay?” This happened more than once during the conversation. 58. At the end of their talk, Ms. Brouillette asked, “Do you want me to look at leaves of absence to see if coping is allowed?” The Grievor told Ms. Brouillette that she knew that would not be -70 - acceptable. The Grievor ended the conversation by asking Ms. Brouillette the guidelines for unpaid leaves. Email Exchange with Jennifer Brouillette April 23, 2015 59. YSM Brouillette sent the Grievor an email titled, “Discussion Summary”. In it, the YSM characterized her and the Grievor’s discussion as follows: She said that she had told the Grievor she was not entitled to scheduled breaks, but that that there are various times throughout the day when the Grievor may have “rest periods” pending approval by the Manager and depending on operational needs. 60. Ms. Brouillette also clarified that the SIS Form should be used for concerns and suggestions since Occurrence Reports are not the format for concerns/suggestions. 61. Ms. Brouillette wrote that she and the Grievor had discussed the Grievor’s past use of LWOPs and that she had informed the Grievor that she needed to submit these requests to Ms. Brouillette in writing for prior approval. She also wrote that the Grievor had indicated to YSM Brouillette that she had been using the majority of her LWOPs “for mental health and coping” as the Grievor had reported having difficulties with the Residents when they were not in school. 62. Finally, Ms. Brouillette wrote that “the Grievor’s mental health concerns and struggling to cope would not be LWOP.” Ms. Brouillette wrote that she would encourage the Grievor to have this conversation with her physician and/or access the resources under EAP. April 25, 2015 63. The Grievor responded that she did not agree with the last part of the email that YSM Brouillette had written, and that the information she provided was incorrect. The Grievor requested to sit and speak with Ms. Brouillette at her earliest convenience. April 28, 2015 64. Ms. Brouillette agreed to meet the Grievor the following Wednesday. Grievor Denied Breaks as CFYC Short-Staffed April 25, 2015 65. When the Grievor was working in Cottage 6, YSM Walker walked by at approximately 0800hrs and announced that CFYC is short-staffed and that breaks were likely not going to happen. The Grievor told Mr. Walker that that was ridiculous, that it was 0800hrs and that the Grievor still had 11hours left on her shift. Mr. Walker told the Grievor “Just go out the back door.” The Grievor told Mr. Walker that she does not bring her cigarettes into the institution and, even if the Grievor did, she would not be going out the back door. 66. On April 26, 2015 Superintendent Claude St. Jean walked into the Cottage and said hello to YSO Eugene D’Orazio and no one else, exhibiting management’s favourable bias towards him. Grievor’s Incident with Eugene D’Orazio April 30, 2015 67. On Thursday April 30, 2015 the Grievor was assigned on duty as Cottage 6 staff. YSO D’Orazio was also on duty. YSO Debassige was also Cottage staff but was assigned to one-to-one duty with a Resident. The Grievor spoke with a Resident who was very upset. She then asked him if he was okay. The Resident said he was. The Grievor then told the Resident that she absolutely had to use the bathroom. She asked him to remain calm and told him she would be back in a few minutes. -71 - 68. The Grievor approached the staff room and informed her co-workers that she really needed to use the bathroom. YSO D’Orazio said “No!” The Grievor explained she was serious. YSM Walker told the Grievor that “there’s nobody in there.” The Grievor explained that she needed A YSO with the Residents before she could go to the bathroom. YSO D’Orazio and YSM Walker then left the office and entered the lounge. The Grievor then proceeded to the bathroom. 69. When the Grievor exited the bathroom, YSO D’Orazio was in the staff office near the bathroom door. He immediately started yelling at the Grievor, grabbed the Diester and whipped it on the desk. Amongst other things, Mr. D’Orazio yelled “I’ve f--kin’ had it with you!” “I’m tired of your bullshit!”, "I’m sick of your fucking attitude; we need to talk and we need to talk right f-- king now!” The Grievor told Mr. D’Orazio that he needed to calm down. She was also trying to leave the area. Mr. D’Orazio continued to yell at the Grievor and continued to demand she speak with him. As the Grievor was leaving the area, Mr. D’Orazio followed her out of the office and into the lounge area. 70. While the Grievor was in the bathroom, YSO Gagnon had arrived at the Cottage and was in the lounge area with Ms. Debassige and four Residents. The Grievor noticed that YSM Walker was heading towards the door to exit the Cottage. The Grievor quickly approached him and said “You can’t go anywhere right now; I don’t feel safe.” YSM Walker then remained in the Cottage. 71. YSO D’Orazio continued to yell abuse at the Grievor in the lounge. YSO Gagnon told the Residents they were going outside. The Grievor joined Mr. Gagnon, Ms. Debassige and four Residents as they left the Cottage. The Grievor could still hear Mr. D’Orazio yelling inside the Cottage. 72. YSO Gagnon then suggested the group go elsewhere. The Grievor mentioned that they had gym soon, at 1300 hours. The group then proceeded to the gym. 73. After approximately 10 minutes in the gym, Mr. Gagnon said to the Grievor, “Oh Riz, I totally forgot, you have to go back to the Cottage to talk to Mr. D’Orazio.” The Grievor did not believe Mr. Gagnon was serious and looked at him in a way that communicated this. Mr. Gagnon informed the Grievor he would not joke about something like that. Minutes later, the Grievor returned to the Cottage as she believed she had no other choice. 74. The Grievor entered the Cottage and saw YSO Derks, YSM Prudhomme and YSO D’Orazio. Mr. Prudhomme asked the Grievor to go outside with him to speak for a minute. YSM Prudhomme and YSO Sonya Rizzo exited the cottage and sat on the picnic table and started talking. YSM Prudhomme was very understanding and told the grievor that he had seen “YOS Eugene D’Orazio lose it in the past”. 75. Upon reentry, YSM Derks asked, “Who wants to start?” Mr. D’Orazio said “I’ll start”. Mr. D’Orazio then told the Grievor he didn’t like working with her, he didn’t like her attitude and that he had protected and looked out for her. Mr. D’Orazio said he absolutely could not work with the Grievor and that he was a team player and she was not. He said, “You should [hear] what people say about you around here!” The Grievor responded, “Very professional; keep going.” Mr. D’Orazio said he had a problem with the Grievor’s smoke breaks and that she had already taken two that day. He continued, “While you’re gone for half an hour for a smoke, I’m here watching the kids.” The Grievor suggested maybe Mr. D’Orazio also needed breaks. She said she was relieved of her duties when she went out for a smoke; that she did not abandon her post. -72 - 76. When Mr. D’Orazio stopped talking, the Grievor said that he had said lots. The Grievor did not respond as she felt she heard that Mr. D’Orazio did not want to work with her. The Grievor told YSM Derks that she had no problem leaving the unit. YSM Derks then called Mr. Walker and informed him that the Grievor would be moved from the unit. Ms. Derks instructed the Grievor to go to Mr. Walker’s office to get direction as to where she should be stationed. 77. When the Grievor arrived at Mr. Walker’s office, he advised her that Ms. Cunningham was on her way from Cottage 3 and that the Grievor would assume the Admit and Discharge post. Grievor is Pressured to Write Reports and is Not Offered a Supper Break. April 30, 2015 1620 hrs. 78. Ms. Derks knocked on the door where the Grievor was writing her reports and asked, “Is everything good? The Grievor responded, “Yes, thank you.” At approximately 1702 hours Mr. Walker knocked on the door and asked if the Grievor was almost done her reports. She responded, “No, not yet.” Mr. Walker appeared panicked to the Grievor and said, “Well, I have 3 programs. I need staff.” At no point was the Grievor offered a break for supper. 79. The Grievor submitted an Occurrence Report on April 30, 2015 pertaining to this incident with Mr. D’Orazio. Grievor Teased and Harassed by Resident Regarding the Incident on April 30, 2015 May 4, 2015 80. One resident in particular began to make comments towards the Grievor referring to the incident with Mr. D’Orazio on April 30. The resident would make comments such as, “Open my door or I will pull a Eug on you.” The resident would also posture towards the Grievor in an intimidating fashion. This led to a further poisoning of the Grievor’s workplace. Meeting with Laurie St. Amand (Union) YSM Naumenko, YSM Brouillette, YSO Rizzo regarding YSM Brouillette’s email to the Grievor May 4, 2015 81. During the meeting, the Grievor asked Ms. Brouillette why she would make comments about her mental health in an email. YSM Brouillette responded that she had only used those words because the Grievor had. The Grievor asserted she did not use those words in their conversation or any other conversation. Ms. St. Amand stopped the conversation at this point. 82. Ms. St. Amand spoke to Ms. Brouillette about always asking the Grievor if she was okay and told her it was like poking a bear. There was also some discussion with Ms. Naumenko and Ms. Brouillette, where they explained that they asked the Grievor if she was okay because her co- workers would often come in and tell the managers that the Grievor had been in her car crying. 83. The Grievor asked why she hadn’t been told about her coworkers saying this before if the Managers were so concerned. The Grievor challenged their concern when neither manager had checked on her. Ms. Brouillette Asks Grievor if Grievor is Okay Again April 29 or 30, 2015 84. The Grievor was outside having a cigarette when she received a radio transmission from Ms. Brouillette to call her extension. The Grievor radioed back “It will be a minute”. 85. When the Grievor re-entered the Building she went to the staff lounge, called Ms. Brouillette’s extension and said “Hi there” to Ms. Brouillette. Ms. Brouillette replied, “Oh, hi there! Are you okay?” The Grievor asked Ms. Brouillette why she was asking if she was okay. The Grievor told Ms. Brouillette she was okay and they proceeded to discuss the purpose of Ms. Brouillette’s call. There was no purpose for this call other than YSM Brouilette harassing the grievor because the grievor was outside. The grievor felt singled out and harassed by this behaviour. -73 - Email Exchange with YSM Joe Shaw re: WDHP May 5, 2015 86. YSM Shaw wrote the Grievor and request that she submit in writing the nature of her WDHP complaint and the prohibited grounds it concerned which would then be forwarded to the WDHP advisor, who would contact the Grievor directly to discuss the matter further. 87. Mr. Shaw then wrote that they required the Grievor’s response by the end of the week. Once they received her response, they would review it and set up mediation or a time to discuss the Grievor’s issues further. WDHP Advisor, Jody Nyasha Warner Contacts the Grievor re: Complaint. May 5, 2015 88. Ms. Warner emailed the Grievor that Mr. Shaw had referred her WDHP complaint to her unit. Ms. Warner requested to set up a time to hear more about the complaint and to explain the process to the Grievor. ion with The Grievor re: Reports May 8, 2015. 89. Mr. Rod McNair told the Grievor he had been approached by Mr. Shaw and told to write a report in regards to the incident following the Grievor’s request to get relief for a bathroom break on April 26, 2015. Grievor Inquires about progress of WDHP Investigation. May 28, 2015 90. On May 28, 2015 the Grievor had a talk with Ms. Louise Williams, Deputy Superintendent, in her office and asked her if she could go out for a smoke. When the Grievor left Ms. Williams’ office, she went towards the staff lounge. When the Grievor turned the corner she saw Mr. D’Orazio speaking with another staff member near the lounge door. In order to avoid Mr. D’Orazio, the Grievor went through the metal detector area, through to the kitchen then back up the stairs by D- 6 and proceeded outside. 91. Afterwards, the Grievor saw Ms. Williams in the main office, approached her and asked how long the WDHP investigation would take. The Grievor told her she had just seen Mr. D’Orazio and that her whole body got hot, started shaking and that her anxiety levels were high. She told Ms. Williams she felt like vomiting and that she felt afraid of Mr. D’Orazio. Grievor sees Mr. D’Orazio and has an Anxiety Attack June 2, 2015 92. On Tuesday June 2, 2015 the Grievor arrived for work and as she walked toward the main building, she saw Mr. D’Orazio, Ms. Michaud and another staff member walking towards her from the building. The Grievor felt anxious so she re-opened her car door and pretended to look for something in her car. The Grievor waited until they all left and then proceeded to the main building. Grievor Informs Mr. Walker she is Uncomfortable with Being Relieved by Mr. D’Orazio June 5, 2015 93. At approximately 0700hrs, the Grievor was informed that her relief was Mr. D’Orazio at 1900hrs. At approximately 1715hrs the Grievor informed YSM Walker that she did not feel comfortable with Mr. D’Orazio relieving her. Mr. Walker told YSO Triemstra to switch duties with the Grievor after kitchen duties. 94. The Grievor wrote a one-page note about this in the WDHP form. The Grievor is scared to walk near Mr. D’Orazio June 7, 2015 95. The Grievor arrived at work at approximately 0635hrs. She saw Mr. D’Orazio and was scared to be in close proximity to him at the walkway entrance. The Grievor was increasingly feeling unsafe in her workplace. -74 - Grievor informed she would be scheduled in Cottage 6 and be relieved by Mr. D’Orazio June 8, 2015 96. The Grievor asked YSM Lewis why she wasn’t scheduled in her regular unit. Mr. Lewis told the Grievor he would talk to her later. At the end of the day, YSM Lewis informed the Grievor that she would be in Cottage 6 the next day as YSO D’Orazio would be in at 2300hrs. The Grievor Informs Mr. Lewis She is Uncomfortable Relieving Mr. D’Orazio June 11, 2015 97. The Grievor reported for work at 0635hrs and asked YSM Lewis if Mr. D’Orazio was still in the unit. The Grievor told Mr. Lewis she did not feel comfortable relieving Mr. D’Orazio and that she would stay in the staff lounge until Mr. D’Orazio left the unit. 98. Mr. Lewis then sent YSO Ayotte to relieve Mr. D’Orazio. The Grievor hid in the staff lounge waiting for Mr. D’Orazio to leave before she could proceed to her unit. Mr. Lewis Repeatedly Inquired about the Grievor’s Reports June 11, 2015 1720 hrs. 99. At 1720hrs Mr. Lewis told the Grievor that if her reports were not completed before 1900hrs, the Grievor would have to finish them the next day. The Grievor told him her reports would be completed. Mr. Lewis called the Grievor at approximately 1825hrs and asked if her reports were done yet. The Grievor told Mr. Lewis her reports were done. Grievor Informed of New Policy Regarding Breaks June 15, 2015 100. The Grievor was working in Cottage 3. At 1100hrs the Grievor asked Mr. Lewis if she could go out for a break. Mr. Lewis told the Grievor, “We got a new memo that there are crucial times when breaks can’t be taken. YSO Hooey is being relieved right now, so there is one staff already doing other duties, so no.” 101. Later on in the Grievor’s shift the Grievor checked her emails in hopes that she would see the memo to which Mr. Lewis had referred. The Grievor found no such memo. At supper, the Grievor informed Mr. Lewis that she had not received any email regarding a change in the break policy. Mr. Lewis shrugged. Grievor Forced to Take On Additional Duties June 16, 2015 102. The Grievor was the Emergency Person (EP) on this day and as such, should not have had to relieve anyone as she was supposed to be responding to emergencies. However, the Grievor had to go into the kitchen area to relieve YSO Crystal Williams as she was in crisis and no other staff members were showing any concern. This was another example of the unsupportive workplace. The Grievor Sees Mr. D’Orazio and has Increased Anxiety. June 24, 2015 103. The Grievor was attempting to leave work at 1835 hrs. Mr. D’Orazio was approaching the building. The Grievor experienced extreme anxiety. The Grievor was shaking and sweating head- to-toe after seeing Mr. D’Orazio on the other side of the doors. She then realized she had forgotten her sweater and would need to re-enter the building. 104. The Grievor saw Ms. Naumenko and YSM Labbe, who put his hand on the Grievor’s shoulder and asked if she was okay. The Grievor told him she had no problem with the incident they just had regarding a physical restraint, but she did have a problem with attempting to exit the building. The Grievor told both YSMs Naumenko and Labbe she did not feel safe around Mr. D’Orazio and asked -75 - them how long the WDHP investigation would take. Ms. Naumenko informed the Grievor she is supposed to have a conference call at 1000hrs the next day and may know more then. Grievor is Scheduled with Mr. D’Orazio Again June 25, 2015 105. At approximately 0635hrs the Grievor reported for her 0700-1900 hour shift. The Grievor arrived to the control office and saw she was originally scheduled in Cottage 3 but had been moved to Cottage 6—Mr. D’Orazio’s post. She was to relieve Mr. D’Orazio according to the schedule. The Grievor was signing out her keys and saw Mr. D’Orazio walking down the hallway. She became tense. Soon after, the Grievor observed on the Allocation that Mr. D’Orazio would be the Grievor’s relief at 1900 hrs. The Grievor Informs Ms. Naumenko She Feels Unsafe. June 25, 2015 106. The Grievor approached Ms. Naumenko and said, “I do not feel safe and I do not feel that the institution is allowing me a safe place to work. YSM Naumenko then told the Grievor that there would be a meeting at 1040hrs. 107. Later, the Grievor was approached by Ms. Naumenko and told they had information on her WDHP matters and wanted the Grievor to attend a meeting in Joe Shaw’s office. Meeting with Joe Shaw--Grievor Informed of the Result of the WDHP Investigation. June 25, 2015, 1105hrs 108. YSO Chevrette, Ms. Naumenko, Mr. Shaw and the Grievor were present at this meeting. The Grievor was told the matter involving Mr. Eugene D’Orazio was found to be out of scope and the matter involving YSM Jennifer Brouillette was found to be in scope. Mr. Shaw and Ms. Naumenko told the Grievor that the matter involving Mr. D’Orazio was not found to be in scope as it was an isolated incident and not considered harassment. 109. Mr. Shaw and Ms. Naumenko told the Grievor that if the she had any questions to contact WDHP Advisor Jody Warner with her concerns. The Grievor asked if discipline had been meted out to either party, to which the Grievor was told that was confidential information. 110. Mr. Chevrette asked why it had taken two months to come to this conclusion, when in the Grievor’s initial report the Grievor stated that she had felt “unsafe”. Mr. Chevette asked why nothing was done to accommodate the situation and why the Grievor was constantly being put in uncomfortable situations. Mr. Shaw shrugged his shoulders to all these questions. 111. The Grievor went home sick at 1204hrs. Mr. D’Orazio Returns to Day Shifts in Cottage 6 June 29, 2015 112. The Grievor worked 0700-1500, Admit and Discharge out of Cottage 3. Grievor’s call to WDHP Advisor Jody Warner June 30, 2015 113. The Grievor called Jody Warner hoping to get some answers. The Grievor explained to Ms. Warner that she did not understand why these matters were not being dealt with. Ms. Warner provided the Grievor with no answers. The Grievor asked why the process was confidential when the Grievor was involved in the matter. Ms. Warner explained to the Grievor that Cecil Facer and the Ministry could deal with matters in-house, and that they do not need to inform her of anything. Post-Investigation Scheduling July 3, 2015 114. The Grievor was scheduled as Cottage 3 staff. Mr. D’Orazio scheduled in Cottage 6. -76 - July 4, 2015 115. The Grievor was scheduled to Cottage 3 staff and one-to-one. Mr. D’Orazio was scheduled in Cottage 6. July 5, 2015 116. The Grievor was posted at Admit and Discharge out of Cottage 3. Mr. D’Orazio was posted in Cottage 6. Mr. D’Orazio Yelling at Youth July 8, 2015 117. While in the dining hall, the Grievor observed Mr. D’Orazio yelling at a Resident in a very loud, intimidating voice. This further exhibited his violent and aggressive tendencies. 118. On July 10, 2015, the grievor and YOS Scott transferred 3 youths by flight to Fort Francis and returned with one youth. The Employer allowed the Grievor to do a community escort. Grievor Files Grievance 2015-0618-070 (Now 2015-0616-0013) July 15, 2015 Grievor Files Grievance 2015-0618-071 (Now 2015-0616-0014) July 15, 2015 Grievor’s Meeting with YSM Shaw- Informed She May Now be Scheduled with Mr. D’Orazio July 28, 2015 119. On July 28, 2015 the Grievor received a call from Don Genier that the Grievor was going to be relieved in a few minutes by YSO Daigle because Mr. Shaw would like to speak to her. 120. The Grievor proceeded to the shift supervisors’ office after being relieved of her duties. YSMs Brouillette, Genier and Naumenko were all sitting in the office chatting. The Grievor told YSM Genier that she had been relieved of her duties and asked if she still had to stop at Mr. Shaw’s office. YSM Genier told the Grievor she was free to leave, but also told her to stop by Mr. Shaw’s office. 121. The Grievor proceeded to Mr. Shaw’s office and asked before entering if she needed union representation. Mr. Shaw said he didn’t think so. Mr. Shaw then told the Grievor, “Because the matter between you and Mr. D’Orazio has been dealt with, I just wanted to let you know that you guys may now be scheduled together.” The Grievor sarcastically said “Excellent!” and walked out of Mr. Shaw’s office. 122. On the drive home at the end of her shift, the Grievor was so upset she had to pull over to the side of the highway. The Grievor remained there for over half hour until she felt she could drive again. Grievor has Anxiety when Seeing Mr. D’Orazio August 5, 2015 123. The Grievor was supposed to be working as an escort out of Cottage 6 but was busy relieving the desk that morning. The Grievor stayed away from the Cottage as much as she could to avoid Mr. D’Orazio. The Grievor did kitchen duty twice. When she was in the gym at approximately 1420hrs with Mr. D’Orazio, she was very anxious. Grievor Assigned to Cottage 6 with Mr. D’Orazio August 24, 2015 124. The Grievor told YSO Abar that she did not feel safe going over to the unit by herself. Ms. Abar then accompanied the Grievor to the Cottage. The youth were beginning two weeks off of -77 - school, meaning the Grievor would be expected to be with her partner, Mr. D’Orazio, the entire shift. Management was aware that the Grievor did not feel safe around Mr. D’Orazio. 125. The Grievor called Ms. Naumenko at 0722hrs and told her she was sick and needed to go home. Ms. Naumenko called the Grievor back at approximately 0726hrs and said “you’re staying there until I find someone.” The Grievor responded, “Yes, I would not abandon my post.” 126. At approximately 0735hrs Ms. Naumenko called back and said that YSO Faraguer was coming in to relieve the Grievor. At 0837hrs, over an hour later, Ms. Faraguer entered the Cottage to relieve the Grievor. The grievor did not feel safe being around Mr. D’Orazio. Doctor Puts Grievor on Medical Leave August 26, 2015 127. The Grievor had a doctor’s appointment at 0945hrs with a GP who wasn’t her regular doctor. That doctor wrote the Grievor a note saying “off due to an adjustment disorder”. Grievor Requests to Not be Scheduled with Mr. D’Orazio Sept. 3, 2015 128. The Grievor called Ms. Naumenko and informed her she would be off until September 7. On that call the Grievor requested to not work directly with Mr. D’Orazio. Grievor Returns to Work Sept 7, 2015 129. The Grievor returns to work and is not scheduled directly with Mr. D’Orazio. Doctor’s Note Sept 8, 2015 0700-1900 130. The Grievor handed in her doctor’s note to Ms. Naumenko at 0945hrs. Stage II Meeting and Overtime Disagreement September 29, 2015 131. At this meeting, it was agreed that mediators from the Ministry of Labour would be handling the Grievor’s matter. Don Smith, Nicole Fournier, Blair Pitfield and the Grievor were all present. 132. The Grievor handed in her overtime sheet. 133. At approximately 0715 hours on October 1, 2015 Mr. Prudhomme entered the control office and told the Grievor he had bad news: he informed the Grievor she was not entitled to be paid for overtime because it wasn’t his section that had requested the Stage 2 meeting. Grievor Discriminated Against Due to Accommodation October 1st, 2015 134. On October 1st, 2015, the Grievor was informed by YSO Gauthier that he was given an escort for Monday October 5, 2015 to Timmins. Mr. Gauthier told the Grievor that her name had been mentioned. 135. The Grievor called YSM Prudhomme and asked if the escort was already filled. Mr. Prudhomme told the Grievor that he had called YSO Korosec to give him the escort duty, but he had not gotten an answer. Mr. Prudhomme informed the Grievor that she was next up and that Dan Gauthier and the Grievor could go. 136. At approximately 1150hrs the Grievor received a call from Mr. Prudhomme and was told that she could not go because she was on a day shift accommodation. The Grievor was discriminated against due to her day shift accommodation. Grievor Scheduled with Mr. D’Orazio October 1st, 2015 -78 - 137. At approximately 1630hrs the Grievor was in Cottage 6 with YSO Giroux and YSO D’Orazio. The Grievor was getting very agitated in the unit around Mr. D’Orazio and Ms. Brouillette. YSM Brouilette was in her office with Youth K braiding her hair. The Grievor said “I wonder if I have to do kitchen” and picked up the phone and called extension 283 but there was no answer in the shift supervisor’s office. 138. The Grievor then pretended to be talking to YSM Chevrier and said “I’m on my way.” The Grievor went to the main building and spoke to YSM Chevrier and told him that she was absolutely not staying in the unit with Mr. D’Orazio by herself. The Grievor also asked why there had been changes to the Allocation as Mr. D’Orazio was supposed to have been working in Cottage 3. Mr. Chevrier provided the Grievor with no answers. Grievor Harassed by Mr. Shaw October 5, 2015 139. At approximately 1255hrs, Mr. Shaw said the following to the Grievor several times: “I’ve been told you want a transfer to Cottage 3.” The Grievor told Mr. Shaw that he had the wrong information and that she had never once requested to go to Cottage 3. Mr. Shaw said, “We have YSM Prudhomme right here who could make it happen.” The Grievor said to both, “I have never requested to go to 3 and you, Mr. Shaw, have the wrong information.” Mr. Shaw then said “I must have the wrong information” and walked away. Co-Worker’s Death October 9, 2015 140. The staff was told by Superintendent Claude St. Jean that Crystal Williams had died that morning. She had been found dead at home by YSM Brouillette. The Grievor was very upset by this news. 141. October 13 was the birthday of the grievor’s late brother, who passed away September 13, 2009. That day was also the day of YOS Crystal Williams’ funeral. Dave Lewis, YSM, was not permitted to attend the funeral. Ms. Williams had laid criminal charges against YSM Lewis. 142. At the Grievor’s appointment with her family doctor on October 21, 2015, she informed the doctor she was having a hard time coping with the death of her co-worker, Ms. Williams, but did not want to be off work. The doctor referred the Grievor to Psychologist Dr. Michel Lariviere. 143. On or about October 19, 2015, the grievor was leaving work when a vehicle backed up to the entrance of the Centre. In the vehicle was Bonnie Demeule. Ms. Rizozo greeted Ms. Demuele, who immediately started crying. She advised the grievor that when Ms. Demeule had informed Mr. Shaw earlier that day that her sick leave was extended by her doctor, Mr. Shaw told her she would have to empty her office that day as they needed the office space. The grievor assisted Ms. Demeule in emptying her office, which was full, and left the institution at approximately 2000 hours. Mediators Changed after Agreement re: MOL Mediators without Consent of Grievor/ Union October 23, 2015 144. At the Stage II meeting it had been agreed that mediators from the Ministry of Labour would be handling the Grievor’s matter. The Grievor agreed to this process as long as Mr. Blair Pitfield would be present at the mediation. 145. At approximately 1500hrs Mr. Shaw approached the Grievor and asked her to go to his office. The Grievor went to Mr. Shaw’s office and he explained that he and two mediators (1 YSO from Sprucedale and 1 Probation Officer from Mississauga) would conduct the mediation. The Grievor informed Mr. Shaw that this was not her understanding, as it had been made very clear in the Stage II meeting that it would be a Ministry of Labour mediator. -79 - 146. The Grievor called Mr. Pitfield at approximately 1530hrs and informed him of what she had been told by Mr. Shaw. Mr. Pitfield agreed that at the meeting it was agreed that there would be outside mediators from the Ministry of Labour. Sick Day October 28, 2015 147. The Grievor called in sick as she was anxious about having to attend the Trauma Seminar the next day. The Grievor never got picked to attend any seminars or workshops, but was told she would be required to attend the Trauma Seminar. Grievor Scheduled with Mr. D’Orazio Nov. 2, 2015 148. On this day, the Grievor was working a 0700-1900 shift as Cottage 6 staff. Mr. D’Orazio was assigned to the SIU and was out of Cottage 6 from 0700-1500. Mr. D’Orazio was assigned from 1500-1900 as Cottage staff. YSO Gauthier was not in the unit from 1500-1900, as he was hanging out with YSM and control. 149. On or around this date the grievor wrote an occurrence report relating to the neglect of a youth’s medical needs. The grievor had made several attempts to draw attention to this issue prior to writing the report. The youth was having problems with his feet, which the grievor researched at home. Unlike other departments, the grievor and Youth Services Officers do not have internet access at work. Grievor’s Talk with Mr. Shaw Nov. 2, 2015 150. At approximately 1503hrs the Grievor was on duty on academic bench. Mr. Shaw sat beside the Grievor and started speaking a voice low enough that the Grievor could not understand what he was trying to say. The Grievor then heard Mr. Shaw say, “I just spoke to on his way to island.” The Grievor was confused and asked Mr. Shaw what he was trying to say? Mr. Shaw said “I just spoke to Mr. Pitfield and he is on his way to the Island.” The Grievor asked Mr. Shaw what he was trying to tell her. This exchange was confusing to the Grievor. 151. The Grievor then told Mr. Shaw, “It has been over six months. I am upset and I feel that I have been harassed for trying to stand up for myself.” Mr. Shaw continued to sit beside the Grievor, which made her increasingly upset and uncomfortable. The Grievor told Mr. Shaw that she will no longer allow anyone to harass, bully, or disrespect her anymore. The Grievor also told him she was disgusted with how her issues had been dealt with. 152. Mr. Shaw looked at the Grievor with a strange look and said “just hand in grievances.” The Grievor responded, “Grievances? Nothing is even done when grievances are handed in. And on top of that, I don’t know how to write them. Will you help?’ Mr. Shaw said, “Oh no, I can’t help you.” The Grievor looked at him and said “I will take care of myself. I’m telling you I will never be treated like this again.” Grievor Scheduled to Same Cottage as Harasser November 7, 2015 153. On November 7, 2015 the Grievor arrived at work and noticed she was scheduled in Cottage 6 with Mr. D’Orazio. The Grievor proceeded to the shift supervisor’s office and told Mr. Sheer that she was either going home sick or would have to change posts. The Grievor expressed her frustration that nothing had been done about the situation since April. Mr. Sheer told the Grievor that he was unaware of any issues and told the Grievor he couldn’t afford her going home sick. Mr. Sheer then changed the Grievor’s assignment to Admit and Discharge duties, away from the harasser. -80 - 154. On or about this date, another employee, Amanda Derks, advised the youth with the foot problems noted above to call the advocate about his feet. A call was made by the youth to the Advocate. 155. On November 12, 2015 the grievor observed that the youth’s feet were being soaked for the first time. 156. The grievor was assigned to a suicide watch with respect to this same youth, youth “R”. When the youth awoke, he was very agitated. He began listening to rap music on his MP3 player, singing out loud to the rap music. The lyrics were extremely inappropriate. The youth was singing about killing, murdering, and rape, and similar extremely offensive content. 157. On or around the same date, another youth, youth “G”, caused a disturbance in a classroom. The youth kicked chairs around the room and threw a desk. The youth was removed from the classroom and taken outside. Youth Services Manager Naumenko, who had no knowledge of the incident and had not observed it, came over to see the youth and began to rub the youth’s back. The youth responded by stating “don’t fucking touch me”. 158. On another occasion, on November 18, Youth Services Manager Brouilette was sitting in her office while a youth was causing a disturbance in the cottage. The grievor asked YSM Brouilette to come and deal with the youth. YSM Brouilette refused, and told the grievor to call YSM Jeff Paul, shift supervisor, to come over to the cottage from the main building. Grievor Denied Pre-Approved Time-off December 2, 2015 159. The Grievor went to see Mr. Prudhomme about vacation for the following Friday. Mr. Prudhomme said the Grievor could have the rest of the week off. The Grievor decided to take four hours off from 1100 to 1500 the next day and 0700 to 1500 on the following day. 160. The next day, on December 3, 2015, YSM Naumenko called the Grievor at approximately 1030hrs and told her that there will be a phone call coming in for her in half an hour. The Grievor told Ms. Naumenko that she had taken four hours off, was just waiting for her relief and would then leave. Ms. Naumenko told the Grievor that her shift did not end until 1100hrs and that Ms. Naumenko was following direction from Mr. Shaw. 161. Employees typically arrive 20 minutes prior to the start of their shift and relieve employees coming off shift. It is typical, once relieved, for employees to leave even if this is before the precise hour on which their shift ends, as they typically arrive early and are relieved early as well. It is and was unusual to be specifically required to remain until 1100 hours despite relief. Grievor has Incident with YSO Mayhew and YSO Abar in control office. December 3, 2015 162. YSO Mr. Greg Mayhew yelled at and pushed Ms. Crystal Abar in the control office as he was upset that she was not early. The Grievor witnessed this and ran and his in the office, as she became very stressed in the poisoned work environment. Grievor needs to complain about youth with a nicotine patch 163. On December 18, the grievor was working with a youth who was wearing a nicotine patch, given to the youth by healthcare. It is not typically permitted for youth to be given nicotine patches. The grievor had to complain about this, and after she did so the patch was removed from the youth. Grievor Begins Twice-Monthly Appointments with Psychologist. Jan 11, 2016 -81 - 164. Grievor saw Dr. Lariviere on January 11 and 22. Poisoned Work Environment Feb 4, 2016 165. The Grievor overheard a colleague making fun of another YSO for having PTSD. This further added to the poisoning of the Grievor’s work environment. Refusal of Break Feb 24, 2016 166. The Grievor worked the first of five 0700-1500 one-to-one shifts on suicide watch with Resident Z from 0630hrs to 1100hrs. The Grievor requested a break from YSM Sheer and Superintendent St. Jean, with YSM Derks present. The Grievor was not allowed a break and left work at 1130hrs. 167. The Grievor spoke to YSM Labbe at approximately 0900hrs and told him her concerns about the MP3 player being shared between Resident Z and Resident M. Grievor Leaves for Approved Break Feb 25, 2016 168. While working a one-to-one suicide watch from 0640hrs to 1000hrs, Mr. Sheer tells the Grievor that YSO Langevin will be leaving the grounds for about 45 minutes and that she can go for a quick smoke break before he leaves. The Grievor said she would appreciate that and thanked him. Mr. Scott relieved the Grievor of one-to-one duties at 1020hrs and the Grievor went out for a break. Mr. Prudhomme Requests Grievor Write Occurrence Report about Leaving Early Feb 26, 2016 169. At 1330hrs while the Grievor is on duty, Mr. Prudhomme informs her that she has to write an occurrence report as to why she left early the day before. The Grievor responded, “I guess I am not allowed to leave work without that report being written?” Mr. Prudhomme said “Yes, they want it before you leave today.” The Grievor sarcastically told Mr. Prudhomme she would try to write her report while she supervises a one-to-one on suicide watch. Mr. Prudhomme told the Grievor he would provide relief. The Grievor agreed. She was then relieved of her one-to-one duties by Mr. Levesque. 170. The Grievor then went out front at approximately 1410hrs so she could call Ms. St. Amand. She returned at approximately 1430hrs. The Grievor asked YSM Paul if there was a computer she could use. She went to the radio room and opened her email but her mailbox was full so she had to delete several emails. This took the Grievor some time. The Grievor ultimately worked from 1500 to 1700hrs writing the report. he Grievor Rewrite her Report. Feb 27, 2016 0700-1500 171. YSM Prudhomme called the Grievor and asked her to come to his office. He told the Grievor that Mr. Shaw would like her to re-write her report with more information because Mr. Shaw is worried about WDHP. The Grievor told Mr. Prudhomme she was exhausted and would not rewrite her report. She said that if she is not allowed to leave unless she rewrites her report, then she would write it after finding a safe place to do so and would go to sleep until she was allowed to go home. The Grievor was then permitted to go home without rewriting her report. Grievor Confiscates MP3 Player from Resident March 4, 2016 172. The Grievor had already raised the fact that Resident M had an MP3 player, that he did not own, with Mr. Labbe, the Cottage 3 Manager, on February 24, 2016. The Grievor informed Mr. Labbe she was now in possession of the MP3 player as she had confiscated it as she had reason to question its contents. Mr. Shaw Approaches Grievor Regarding Email, Report and MP3 Player March 8, 2016 173. Mr. St. Jean was standing a few feet behind Mr. Shaw when Mr. Shaw informed the Grievor that he would need an Occurrence Report about the MP3 incident. The Grievor told Mr. Shaw that -82 - she would write the report but that she was in training until 1500hrs and EP from 1500- 1900. The Grievor told Mr. St. Jean and Mr. Shaw that she needed the resident’s MP3 player, which had been the source of the issue, to write her reports. Both men appeared annoyed to the Grievor. 174. At approximately 0827hrs, the Grievor told Mr. Shaw she could write her reports once she was relieved of her duties. Mr. Shaw told the Grievor to go to her training and that he would have her relieved at some point to write her reports. As the Grievor walked away Mr. St. Jean said, “That MP3 player and report should have been dealt with on Friday.” The Grievor proceeded with YSO Albert to Cottage 1. 175. When the Grievor arrived at Cottage 1 at approximately 0831hrs, YSO Trainer Vendette told her that he had just received a call saying the Grievor was to return to the office. YSO Walsh (Union) accompanied the Grievor back to the office. 176. As Mr. Shaw was not in his office, Mr. Walsh and the Grievor continued to Mr. St Jean’s office, where he told the Grievor she did not need to speak to Mr. Shaw, but that she would be removed from Training to write her reports. 177. The Grievor got her earphones from her car, went to the staff lounge and began writing her Occurrence Report. At approximately 1109hrs, Mr. St. Jean walked in the lounge, gave the Grievor an unfriendly look and walked back out. The Grievor left work at 1600hrs. 178. On March 11, the grievor left work early after being interrogated, lied to and intimidated by Mr. Shaw. YSO Makes Inappropriate Gesture to YSM in Dining Hall March 26, 2016 179. On March 26 a YSO made an inappropriate gesture in the dining hall. 180. In particular, as of 0753 hours, YSO Derek Coffyn still had not reported for his 0700 shift. Mr. Coffyn often arrived late, but nothing was done to correct this. In the dining hall that day, Mr. Coffyn made an inappropriate gesture – a gesture to “suck him off” – to Youth Services Manager Paul Scheer. 181. This was unacceptable behaviour and further added to the Grievor’s poisoned work environment. Grievor learns of Discipline of Youth Services Manager Guy Prudhomme 182. On March 11, the grievor learned that Youth Services Manager Guy Prudhomme was receiving discipline for the meeting he attended with the grievor on March 11. This was very upset and felt responsible for Mr. Prudhomme receiving a disciplinary suspension. Request for Explanation for Absence March 30, 2016 183. The Grievor was given a brown confidential envelope from YSM Sheer and was asked to write a report as to why she left on March 11 and March 12. 184. The grievor was exhausted mentally, emotionally and physically and left work sick at 1500 hours. Sick Days March 31, 2016 185. The Grievor called in sick at approximately 1900hrs. -83 - April 3, 2016 186. The Grievor called in and told Mr. Chevrier she was calling in sick for April 4 and April 5. Mr. Chevrier told the Grievor she could only call in sick for one shift at a time, and that she would have to call back the next day. April 4, 2016 187. The Grievor called in sick at approximately 1900hrs for April 5. She spoke to YSM St. George, who had no issues with her call. Grievor Files Grievance 2016-0618-0004 April 7, 2016 Sick Days: April 7, 2016 188. The Grievor called in sick at approximately 1900hrs for April 8, 2016. April 8, 2016 189. The Grievor called in sick at approximately 1900hrs for April 9. She spoke to YSM Walker, who told the Grievor it was her fifth consecutive day off sick, and that she would need a doctor’s note to return to work. April 9, 2016 190. The Grievor called in sick at 1900hrs for April 10. She spoke with YSM Walker. April 12, 2016 191. The Grievor called in sick and spoke to YSM Paul. He asked the Grievor when her next doctor’s appointment would be. The Grievor told Mr. Paul she would be seeing her doctor Saturday April 16, 2016 at 0930hrs. Mr. Paul told the Grievor that Upper Management had sent him an urgent message saying they would not grant the Grievor sick time without a doctor’s note, and that the Grievor would have to start taking the days as unpaid leaves of absence. Crying, the Grievor told YSM Paul she would have a note by Saturday morning at the earliest, when she was seeing her doctor. April 13, 2016 192. The Grievor called in sick for April 14 and spoke to YSM Walker. He said “Ok” Sick Leave March 30, 2016. 193. The Grievor was been on a sick leave subsequent to March 30 2016. Refusal to permit grievor to return to work June 19, 2018 Page 45 of 62 194. The grievor had seen an occupational therapist for approximately two months prior to attending work on June 19. A return to work plan approved by Manulife had the grievor returning to work on June 19. ON June 19, the grievor presented at work at went approximately 06:55 hours. At approximately 0705 hours the grievor was told by YSM Ron Erwin that she was not allowed to be there and had to leave. 195. The grievor was extremely confused and questioned Mr. Erwin as to why she had to leave, and told him that June 19 was supposed to be my first day back to work. The grievor felt intimidated and bullied. Again Mr. Erwin told the grievor that she was not allowed to be there and told her she had to leave, He told her if I had any questions to call Manulife or to call Derek Goudreau after 0800 hours. -84 - 196. The grievor was extremely depressed leaving the institution. She did not know what was going on and could not call Manulife or her doctor until they opened. She was escorted by YSM Ron Erwin to the front door and left the institution. 197. She filed a grievance dated July 19, 2018 in response to this incident, alleging that the Employer by failing to permit her to return to work, and failing to accept her medical information, was in breach of the Ontario Human Rights Code as well as articles 2, 3 and 9 of the Collective Agreement. The Grievor’s health and safety concerns were ignored 198. The Grievor continued to experience significant workplace issues and was increasingly stressed and felt that the employer was not addressing her concerns and taking the issues seriously. The Grievor then filed 18 Grievances on September 19, 2021. 199. On or about January 8, 2021, the Grivor had concerns about discrepancy in her pay cheque and the amount dispersed. The Grievor conveyed the concern to Ron Erwin, the Administrator, when she saw him in the Academic Hallway, and requested that something needed to be done to rectify the discrepancy. Ron did not say much and shrugged his shoulder in an uncomfortable way. He later on called the Grievor on her home phone to suggest that he had brought the issue to the management. The Grievor felt anxious and stressed about her pay and spent a good part of the night trying to figure out what she was owed. Here are examples of her pay checks: • October 2, 2020 $1793,50 • October 15, 2020 did not receive a paycheck • October 29, 2020 1777.00 • November 12, 2020 • November 26, 2020 • December 10, 2020 • December 15, 2020 $1611.83 • December 29, 2020 did not receive a paycheck • January 7, 2021 $3.88 200. On February 24, 2021 received an envelope from Terry Labbe on behalf of his wife, Roxanne Labbe. The letter required the Grievor to write an occurrence report prior to the end of her shift concerning her interaction with Roxanne on February 19, 2022. On March 7, the Grievor submitted the occurrence report to SYM Alex Baril at 18:04pm. 201. On March 10, 2021, the Grievor met with YSM JR Chevrette, Ron Erwin and YSO AL Frappier union president. Ron stated that he wanted to squash her occurrence report dated March 7, as it could cause problems to CFYC. Grievor stated her disagreement at the meeting with this approach. 202. On May 24, 2021 the Grievor attempted to restrain a youth involved in a physical altercation with another youth. At the time of the occurrence, the Grievor was working in Cottage 3 along with YSO AL Frappier. They were both in the lounge area when one of the youths ran at the other youth, jumped the chairs and the tables, and was about to assault him. YSO Al Frappier tried to prevent the youth from launching forward from one side of the table. The Grievor also tried to restrain the youth from the other side of the table. The other youth reacted and attempted to punch the youth but instead severely hit the Grievor on the forehead. The Grievor then fell backyards and felt the impact on her right shoulder and back of her head. The Grievor then lost hold of the youth in her hands and arms but continued to restrain him between her legs until someone else hand cuffed him. -85 - 203. When the Grievor was punched in the forehead, she was taken to the clinic via a nurse’s personal car instead of an ambulance. The Grievor felt unwell but also unsafe given that the driver was speeding 35km over the limit on their way to the Four Corners clinic in her ex-husband’s her. The Grievor wondered why she was being treated differently than others when injuries occurred. The workplace seemed not consistent procedures when staff are injured; some staff are transferred to clinics by their own vehicles, while others transported by ministry vehicle or an ambulance. 204. The treating doctor at Four Corners Clinic diagnosed the Grievor and stated that she had sustained a concussion for which she would needed to be away from work for a week in order to recover. The Grievor was put on WSIB for a week. 205. Upon return to work a week after, the Grievor did not have any back to work meeting. There were no discussions about the nature of the incident and what had happened to the Grievor. No concerns were shown in how the incident may had undermined the Grievor’s well-being and safety, nor there were any steps taken in ensuring similar incidents would not happen or would not lead to injuries to the Grievors or others. The Grievor was unsure whether the employer had filled out the WSIB paperwork and provided them with the information requested. 206. Upon return, in June, 2021 the Grievor returned to work but she worked with the youth whom had punched her in a classroom. At the time, teachers were not in the same classroom as the youth because of the COVID restriction. However, the Grievor was put in the classroom without backup, and with two youth to take care of. The youth were not cooperative. They were not doing the assignment they were assigned on the computer but instead they were touching other items and were unresponsive to anything the Grievor instructed them to do. The youth would ignore the Grievor and at some point, one of them decided to run out of the classroom and towards the principle’s office. The Grievor was then relieved of her duties by YSO Hall. It seemed that the Grievor was removed the classroom. The Grievor believes that the unruly youth were not dealt with and instead she was punished despite the difficult position she was placed in. 207. The Grievor decided to discuss some of her safety concerns with Rob Erwin in the Dinning Hall. She told him that safety rules needed to be put in place and enforced in order to prevent more accidents. The Grievor states that there were no street lights and stop signs. Ron had told the Grievor that YSM JR Chevrette would be looking into the issues. The Grievor stated that the safety items were a matter of necessity and needed to be addressed quickly before additional incidents would occur. Ron proceeded to ignore everything the Greivor had said and instead told the Grievor that “if you need time off, take it”. The Grievor shook her head in disbelief at the carelessness concerning safety of staff and decided to not engage with Rob anymore. 208. The Grievor was off on WSIB June 3rd to July 18, 2021 and return on July 19th, 2021. On July 13, 2021 the Grievor returned a call to Ron Erwin and spoke with him for few minutes. The Grievor explained to him that a plan was submitted to the WSIB to the effect that she would have to follow the gradual schedule: week 1 would be 4 hour shifts; week 2 would be 8 hours; week 3 would be 8 hours; week 4 would be back to 8 hour shifts and in week 5, on a trial basis, the Grievor would be back to 12 hours shift. 209. Two days later, on July 15, 2021, Ron Erwin informed me that WSIB hasn’t shared anything with them yet. The Grivor informed Ron that the WSIB form 26 was completed and submitted on June 30th, and that progress report was also completed since then. 210. On July 19th, 2021, the Grievor returned back to work on a gradual schedule that WSIB had advised. WSIB informed the Grievor that they had spoken with Roxanne Labbe and that her return -86 - to work was in place. The WSIB case worker stated that given the return to work procedure was in place, she would no longer be needed. The Grievor continued her work shift as instructed. 211. On August 14, 2021 the Grievor’s family had been exposed to COVID-19. The Grievor was tested for COVID-19 on August 16 and August 20, 2021. The Grievor followed public health advice since then. 212. On August 2, 2021, at 12:40pm, the Grievor leaving the Dinning Hall and noticed that the youth started heading to the academic Hallways. This was contrary to the plans and what the Grievor was told about their schedule. The Grievor advice the youth that they were going back to Cottage. However, YSO P. Walsh contradicted the Grievor and said “No they are going to room #7” and thereby created a conflict in the instruction between what the Grievor had advised and what the youth ended up doing. YSO P. Walsh then left the Grievor and the youth by themselves (which is contrary to the safety protocols of making sure that there are always more than one staff present when accompanying youth) and stated that he would “have to go relieve Mason”. 213. The Grievor was then left with no choice but to follow the youth into room #7 with 3 youth. YSO K.D. Frappler was also present in room #7. The Grievor states that she witnessed one of the youth sitting behind a computer, trying to log into a Netflix account. Up until the point, the Grievor was never told about any authorized use of Netflix at the facilities and found this surprising and contrary to the protocol. The Grievor then told the youth that he was not allowed on the computer. YSM Cartey- Johnson instructed the youth to get off the computer. The youth reluctantly complied. He YSO Cartey- Johnson then tried to find the password for the Netflix account but was unable to find anything. Hethen proceeded to call YSO B. Wabon to ask her if she knew what the account and password needed to go on to Netflix. At that point., YSO P. Walsh entered the room and said: “you guys don’t know the password”. He then went on the computer and entered what seemed to the Grievor to be his personal Netflix account. The Grievor questioned this behavior and asked YSO Gartey-Johnson if YSO P.Walsh was in fact using his personal account. 214. The Grievor was particularly concerned for her safety following her attempt to follow the procedures carefully while other staff ignored the workplace policies. The Grievor had become a target for the youth for not being lenient and lose with the rules. Staff who ignored the procedures and gave the youth access to the computer and the Netflix account were naturally favored by the youth. The Grievor feared that as a result of her not having a Netflix account, and not sharing her account if she had one, she would be targeted by the youth. The staff’s conduct effectively created animosity and conflict between the youth and the Grievor and the staff. 215. On August 25, 2021 the Grievor was on duty in Cottage 3 when she found that a youth was carrying an MP3 with him. The Grievor instructed the youth to leave his MP3 player in his room and accompanied him to his room so that she could monitor that the youth would not continue using the MP3. The youth was not pleased with the Grievor when she attempted to enforce the policy on the use of MP3s. The youth told the Grievor “you can go now Miss”. The youth had managed to still carry the MP3 with him. When the Grievor left, the youth followed her a few minutes later in the hallway and had managed to carry the MP3 with him. After attending a fire drill, YSO Ernie St. Jean told the Gievor that she was in possession of the MP3 but that she did not know how to turn it off. The Grievor told Erin that she knew how to turn it off and she could show her. The Grievor also informed Ernie that she would be writing a behavioral report on the youth for leaving the Cottage with his MP3. 216. The Grievor also informed YSM Chevertte that she was aware of the inappropriate content of songs on the MP3s and that she would hold on to the MP3 in her possession until she had reviewed -87 - some of its content and kept a record. The Grievor found the content of the MP3s to be encouraging criminal behavior, containing offensive and extremely inappropriate language towards women, racial slurs and sexually explicit lyrics. The Grievor had provided many examples [see Exhibit X) of the song lyrics and strongly believes that: 217. The lyrics are highly inappropriate for the young age of the youth she deals with; 218. her health and safety are at risk when she works with youth who are listening to these lyrics and are encouraged to act upon them at her workplace. 219. The lyrics contain sexually explicit and extremely offense language towards women, and therefore, she fears that her attempt at enforcing these rules are meant to ensure greater workplace safety, but she may well be targeted. 220. The Grievor then reported these concerns to YSO Chevrette in the hope that her concerns would be addressed. YSO Chevrette, suggested that they would look into the MP3s for any inappropriate language in the morning. However, the Grievor found out later that the MP3 was returned to the youth after soon she had left by another manager. The Grievor believes that this behavior effectively created a divide between those followed and enforced the rules and those who did not in order to be favor by the youth. 221. The Grievor also takes issue with how the credit-based system to obtain MP3s and downloading privileges are ignored. The Grievor points out that she had found over 809 songs downloaded on the MP3. The Grievor explains that in order to download a large number of songs, the youth must have to had to earn certain number of credits through their work [Exhibit X] . It would be extremely unlikely, if not impossible, that the youth had retained enough credit to get both the MP3s and then the hundreds of songs in it. 222. The Griever asserted that she had been threatened 3 times on August 25 and August 26. The Grievor asserts that she had overheard youth threatening her when the youth was talking to JR Chevrette by stating that he “knows who’s doing this and he is going to do something about it”. The Grievor alleges that she heard JR Chevrette saying “leave the threatening part out but everything else you said was good”. The Grievor had gone to Ron Erwin to file the report and state that she was extremely concerned about her wellbeing and safety, but no meeting was scheduled in order to deal with this serious workplace safety matter. 223. Furthermore, the Grievor asserts that despite ongoing safety concerns, such as threats and assault inflicted on the Grievor, management failed to provide her with a safety plan at work. Furthermore, the Grievor brought the issue of the use of MP3s with inappropriate content to Ron Erwin. Ron has promised the Grievor that the MP3 that she had confiscated from the youth, would not be returned. However, the Grievor found out that shortly after she left work, the youth got his MP3 back. When the Grievor inquired about why the youth was given his MP3 back despite the disturbing and inappropriate content, member of management told her that some of the songs were deleted. The Grievor reminded the management team that there were hundreds of songs saved on the MP3 and therefore deleting some would not amount to much by way of resolving an issue that should have already been addressed long ago. When the Grivor had another discussion with Ron Erwin, he proceeded to call the Grievor a liar and questioned her motive in filing grievances and incident reports. Ron Erwin stated that some of her reports will go to a garbage bin, effectively admitting that many, if not all of the Grievor’s safety concerns were mocked and not taken seriously. Ron Erwin went on to suggest that the Grievor had some ulterior motive in arbitration and instead questioned what the Grievor wanted from the process. The Grievor believes her mistreatment in this manner further created and contributed to a poisonous work environment. -88 - 224. The Grievor alleges that several staff members were clearly aware and may have contributed to downloading some of the highly offensive and inappropriate songs that were on the MP3s. The Grievor believes that the unauthorized use of the MP3s and the content of songs are both a violation of the workplace policy and a contributing factor to the prevalence of violence in the workplace endangering her safety and wellbeing. The Grievor further asserts that given her stand on the use of MP3s, and given that the youth are aware of her attempt to restrict their use, she would be targeted and potentially assaulted. 225. The Grievor was given a hand written note from a youth stating what he had heard YSM JR had told him: “sometimes Fights needs to happen so ppl learn”{Exhibit]. The Grievor states that the youth reported to her that JR Chevrette had said this. This threat occurred in the context of a period where many staff experienced injuries. The Grievor felt extremely scared and took the threat quite seriously. 226. The Grievor refers to a detailed report she drafted in March 8, 2016 where she notified member of the management team about the unauthorized use of MP3s. Her valid concerns about the MP3 use, and the content therein, was ignored. 227. The Grievor asserts that the DVD programing, the MP3 credit-based use policy and the PS3 gaming program are not enforced and youth get differential treatment from different staff members. The Grievor would put a target on her back if she were to enforce the policy and program as devised. The Grievor alleges that management was not concerned about the programing that would assist youth and certainly would create an toxic work environment where violent language and action was deemed acceptable through the use of game consoles and music lyrics. 228. A co-worker approached, Sarah Jamison-Cloutier, and reported that YSM Terry Labbe had sent her a message of sexual nature that made her uncomfortable. She had filed a grievance and as a result that she did not have to work with Terry. However, Terry was placed with her and worked with her. The employer had not done an internal investigation to ensure the harassment-free workplace. 229. The Grievor alleges that by not sharing the findings of the searches, the employer is endangering the staff’s working environment. The lack of proper communication meant that the Grievor was working in an environment where she was unaware of some of the risks associated with the industry. If report finding are not shared with staff, the staff would be unaware of priorities and action items needed to address urgent issues. 230. The Grievor has submitted documents and states that after several employees were assaulted, the employer did not take reasonable action to prevent predictable acts of violence against staff. 231. The Grievor has provided an extensive list of all songs in an MP3 to show that the lyrics are extremely inappropriate, and encourage violent behavior towards women. The Grievor believes that the recreational officers was either aware, or should have been aware, of the content of songs that were downloaded and made available for youth to access. Enabling the youth by downloading content on in the internet instead of the use of bonus program was contrary to the workplace policy and further created conflict and potential violence for staff. 232. The Grievor asserts that on August 8, 2021 at approximately 12:45 at CGYC, she was assigned to 1 to 1 duties in cottage 3. The Grievor was working 1 to 1 with a youth at 7-11am. At approximately 10:50 YSM Gartney- Johnson came to the unit to distribute medications. YSO P. -89 - Walsh asked him if there was any other medication to hand out. YSM Gartney Johnson said there was confusion with the medication as the picture o the youth of their zip log/envelope was not the same as the name assigned. As the Grievor was walking back, a youth told her that he is not on meds but was given a medication the day before. The youth stated to the Grievor that he was given the medication yesterday and they made him extremely tired and he slept a lot. The youth stated “I am not taking those again”. 233. The Grievor notes an incident that on Tuesday November 23, 2021 at approximately 11:50am she was attending the Cecil Facer Youth Centre. Nick Charlemagne then entered Cottage 3 with 3 youth, namely J, T and K. YSO Cody Passanen and YSO Dominique Jayetelike were in the unit with 4 other youth. Three of the four youth, Y, G, Jayden and H were in the unit on Special Program or Modified Program. Generally, YPs who had assaulted or threaten either staff or other YPs are placed in the named programs. The YPs are expected to remain in their units. 234. The Grievor alleges that as she entered the Cottage, she saw YSO Dominique trying to deal with YP G., who appeared unruly. He was speaking disrespectfully and ordered YSO Dominique Jayetelike (J.D) to put a phone call through for him. YP Gabe then went to the lounge and stood there watching the TV. YSO JD repeatedly ordered YP G to go back to his room but his instructions were ignored. YP G then decided to ask for a phone call again and walked to the phone room and demanded that YSO J.D arrange the phone call for him. YSO J.D and the Grievor then attempted to find the contact info in the contacts binder for the person that YP G had demanded a phone call with. As they tried to find the phone number, YP G said “Just dial the fucking number, you fucking idiots”. YSO Cody Pasanen told the Grievor and YSO J.D that there is a yellow sticky note on one of the back pages of the binder and they finally found it. YP G was increasingly aggressive and escalated the situation and started yelling at YSO J.D “You fucking idiot, are you fucking stupid, dial the fucking number now”. AT approximately 12:50, the Grievor left the door at the staff’s office and told YP G “don’t speak to staff like that, it’s unacceptable and go to your room now”. The Grievor then picked up the phone and called YSM Fabien Gartney Johnson and told him that they needed him in the cottage immediately. The Grievor was still on the phone when YP G started saying “nobody fucking yells at me” swearing at her and calling her a fucking bitch and threatened to assault her again. YP G then ran from the phone room, jumped the chairs and launched a punch to the left side of the Grievor’s forehead. To the best of her knowledge, the Grievor believes, she was punched several more times. YP G then got a hold of the Grievor’s hair on the front top left side of her head. At that point all 4 staff mentioned were down on the floor with YP G. The Grievor then lost consciousness for a period of time. Then she remembered squealing loudly a few times and telling her colleagues “he has my hair”. The Grievor states that she couldn’t see anything. The restrain continued and finally the Grievor and others were able to unblocking YP G’s grip on her hair. The Grievor got up from the floor, dazed, injured and confused and touched her hair and noticed that a clump of hair appeared in her hand. YP Tyler then went to the Grievor and put his arm around her, wanting to redirected her. After a few moments, the Grievor went to the Life Line and activated the Blue Button, but she realized that no one was there to respond. YSM Fabien entered the cottage. The Grievor then went to the radio and said “all available managers, not doing anything report to cottage 6”. The Grievor told YSM Fabien to cuff YP G, but the YSM appeared frazzled and was unable to do so. YP G continued to threaten and yell at the Grievor as 3 staff continued to restrain the YP. The Grievor again asked YSM Fabien to “cuff him” as the YP continued to threaten and yell at the Grievor: “shut the fuck up you fucking bitch, I told you guys I don’t care if you’re a woman or man…I’ll fucking get you, you fucking bitch”. At that point YSM Pat Walsh entered the cottage and the Grievor told him “do you want some hair? You’re a little late”. -90 - 235. The Grievor then asked 3 youth in the lounge if they had everything they needed to attend their school and accompanied them to exit cottage 6. As they proceed to exit the cottage, the Grievor states that she saw YSO Ernie St Jean and told him “I am going to take these 3 to school”. In response, he asked if the Grievor wanted him to come along. The Grievor said “No, I have 3 kids”. Further, the Grievor while accompanying the 3 youth, saw YSM Brian Baskomb and Rec Officer Tyler Knowlan (CRT members) casually opening the gate from cottage 1 on their way to cottage 6. The Grievor told the something along the lines of “don’t bother guys, you’re too late”. 236. The Grievor took the 3 youth to the school and told the youth to put away their coats. One of the youth, K continued walking down to the kitchen and the Grievor advised him not to “take off on me now!”. The youth responded “Miss you need ice”. K then knocked on the kitchen door and asked if they had any ice. Linda responded “no we don’t have ice”. The Grievor then advised the youth “it is ok bud, lets go”. The Grievor states that she felt overwhelmed and had a headache. The Grievor focused on taking the 3 youth to a safe place and then take care of herself. All 3 youth were attending the same class; K and J both entered the classroom, and T gave the Grievor a hug and asked “are you ok Miss?”. The Grievor said she was ok and that T needed to go back to the classroom. 237. The Grievor was overwhelmed, sad, confused continued to have a severe headache. Minutes later, the Grievor saw YSM Aurire Pilon at the other end of the Academic Hallway where she was sitting and flagged her down. YSM Aurore asked the Grievor “if everything was OK?”. The Grievor responded “No, I just got assaulted again”. About two minutes later, YSM Nicolas Charlemange walked in the back doors of the Academic Hallway and as the Grievor was walking towards the nurses, Tamara Morton and Alice Beaudoin. Grievor checked with her colleagues in order to take a short break after which she returned and got assessed by the nurses. The Grievor checked the extent of her injury and looked in the mirror. At one point, YSM Aurora Pilon suggested that they could see something in my eyes. One nurse offered a Tylenol and the other nurse filled out the accident report and mentioned the effect of PTSD. The Grievor also received some ice for her head injury. She was asked if she had anyone at home that could pick her up. Grievor said based on her experience, it was best for her to drive herself home than stress her mother. At that Point YSM Aurore got a radio transmission from Roxanne Labbe to call control. YSM Aurire Pilon said “I think I have to relieve in control, lets go to control”. 238. At the control office, Roxxane and YSM Al exchanged some words and briefly Roxxane asked if the Grievor was ok. YSM Aurore asked YSM Al if she could fill out the report on behalf of the Grievor. The Grievor agreed and stated that she trusted YSM Aurore to fill the report at around 12:25pm. The Grievor reminded them that she had requested a meeting earlier tan day at 1:00pm. YSM Aurore left and the Grievor debrief YSM Al of the incident that took place. The Grievor then contacted the psychologist’s office and requested an appointment. 239. The Grievor was then treated for a concussion after she visited her family doctor. She went to the pharmacy and then went home. Prior to getting home she texted YSO Al at 14:45pm and told him she was home. She then texted Aurore (not because she wanted to but because she did not want the employer sending the police to check on her again). She then had a text and phone conversation with the YSM Aurore regarding her concussion. -91 - APPENDIX B UNION’S STATEMENT OF PARTICULARS FOR GRIEVANCES 32-36 Please find below the Union’s particulars in the above-noted grievance for the purpose of arbitration. The union reserves its right to add to and/or amend these particulars, in particular, to any further documents or information that comes to our attention, including production from the employer. These particulars are provided on a without prejudice basis. In no way, does the Union bind itself to any of the allegations, positions, and/or defenses that are contained within or may be inferred from this document. We reserve the right to modify, change, alter or add to these particulars, allegations, positions and/or defenses. These Particulars concerns the following 6 grievances: 1. 2020-0618-0006 January 28, 2020 (Grievance – GSB 2020-11845 2. 2020-0618-0005 February 10, 2020 (Grievance – GSB 2022-11844) 3. 2020-0618-0007 October 1, 2020 (Grievance – GSB 2022-11846) 4. 2020-0618-0008 November 13, 2020 (Grievance GSB 2022-11847) 5. 2020-0618-0009 December 12, 2020 (Grievance GSB 2022-11848) 6. 2021-0618-0023 December 21, 2021 (Grievance GSB 2021- 2795) Grievance 32 (Jan 28, 2020) (Return to Work Issue) (TAB 1) 1. The Grievor, having been on leave since February 26, 2019, returned to work on July 6, 2020. A September 5, 2019 WSIB Report (TAB 2), and October 22, 2019 WSIB Memo (TAB 3) indicates the employer's inability and unwillingness to accommodate the Grievor. 2. The Grievor contends that the employer's failure to provide her with available work constitutes a lack of accommodation. Specifically, the Grievor identifies the Control position as a YSO post (which she was trained and was able to perform), asserting that any staff assigned to this role should possess YSO training. Despite her availability for Control duties, non-YSO staff were appointed to these tasks. The Grievor alleges that certain staff members, during the pandemic, were redirected from their original positions, such as Stores/Laundry staff Sherry McAuliffe, Reintegration Worker Robin Ruble, and Administrator's Secretary Ginette Courshesnes-Godin. The Grievor contends that these staff members assumed YSO responsibilities, receiving both work and overtime pay, to which she believes she should have been entitled. Grievance 33 (Feb 10, 2020): (Return to Work Issue II) (TAB 4) 3. Despite recommendations from multiple reports, including the WSIB report dated September 5, 2019 (TAB 2), advocating for the Grievor's gradual and accommodated return to work plan, the employer appears to have failed to comply with these suggestions. The reports highlight a carefully devised schedule, emphasizing incremental shifts and specific accommodations tailored to the Grievor's health restrictions. However, it is evident from the grievance narrative that the employer did not adequately facilitate the Grievor's reintegration into the workforce, either due to an unwillingness or inability to implement the recommended plans. This lack of adherence to professional recommendations may have negatively impacted the Grievor's ability to transition back to work successfully. 4. The WSIB report dated September 5, 2019, further outlines Ms. Rizzo's treatment goals, including reinforcing coping skills, improving mood, and reducing trauma-related symptoms. Notably, Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy (CBT) on a bi-weekly basis has led to significant improvements in mood-related symptoms, with a fair prognosis for PTSD. 5. The report recommends a gradual return to work, accommodating her restrictions and limitations, as a promising avenue for successful reintegration. In her previous attempt to return -92 - to work, the report notes that the employer was either unable or unwilling to accommodate Ms. Rizzo's health restrictions. 6. The proposed return-to-work plan suggests a phased approach over four weeks, gradually increasing from 4-hour shifts to 8-hour shifts, with the schedule maintained for three months before reassessment. Specific accommodations include no restraints or crisis intervention, day shifts between 0700-1500 hours, maximum 8-hour shifts, a limit of 2 consecutive shifts, at least 2 consecutive days off per week, and the ability to work 2 weekends per month. The Grievor asserts that the employer either did not meaningfully engage with her accommodation needs, or did not take them seriously. 7. Furthermore, the report recommends that Ms. Rizzo be allowed to attend health-related appointments without repercussions or inquiries into confidential health information. It suggests breaks (10 to 20 minutes) for every 4 hours worked and restroom breaks as required. The report emphasizes the importance of continued treatment sessions to support her gradual return to work and address mood and trauma-related symptoms. 8. Overall, the report underscores the need for a thoughtful and accommodating approach to facilitate Ms. Rizzo's successful reintegration into the workplace, all of which the Grievor denies the employer took any active interest to comply. Grievance 34: October 1, 2020 (Unfair Treatment; Unpaid Meal Break) (TAB 5) 9. The Grievor asserts a lack of fair and effective accommodation, citing delays in addressing her accommodation plan, which commenced upon her return to work on July 6, 2020, yet did not materialize in a meeting until September 10, 2020. 10. The employer, prior to the Grievor's return, claimed an absence of available positions other than the Maintenance role. However, the Grievor identified instances where positions, including her original role as a YSO, were intermittently occupied by Non-YSO staff. 11. Although she reluctantly accepted the Maintenance position, the Grievor contends that her original YSO position remained unchanged. The Grievor asserts that her YSO position required a paid meal-break and she expected to receive the same. The Grievor believes that it would be arbitrarily unfair to her that some other employees in the same position as her received accommodations that allowed for the paid meal break. 12. Additionally, the management purportedly communicated to the Grievor that her inability to resume YSO duties stemmed from the non-renewal of her UMBA certificate. Contrary to this, the Grievor highlights instances, such as YSO Dan Gauthier, where colleagues without renewed UMAB certificates were assigned YSO duties, particularly during the limited in-person UMAB training amid the COVID-19 pandemic. 13. On September 15, 2020, the Grievor queried her assignment to an 8.5-hour workday without a paid meal break. In an email, she referenced her concerns raised during the September 10, 2020 HPP meeting with Dan Maclean, Roxanne Labbe, and Loni Shannon. In response, Roxanne Labbe, anticipating a potential grievance, asserted that, due to the Grievor's role in maintenance and lack of direct youth supervision, she was ineligible for paid meal breaks. (TAB 6) 14. The Grievor, cognizant of Ms. Labbe's husband, who was an YSO receiving a more favorable accommodation in maintenance, deemed this disparate treatment unfair. Moreover, she cites other YSOs, such as Mike Jefferies, accommodated to work 8 hours with paid meal breaks, further emphasizing inconsistency in accommodation practices. The Grievor sought that she ought to have been accommodated fairly and should have been given paid meal breaks. The Grievor further asserts that had it not been for the employer’s inability or unwillingness to accommodate her in YSO positions, and had the employer not assigned her to maintenance and given her unfair and inconsistent accommodation options, -93 - then she would not have been required to work without a paid meal breaks. Grievance 35 (Nov 13, 2020) (re Grievance timeline and HPP process) (TAB 7) 15. The Grievor contends that the employer failed to adhere to the appropriate timeline concerning her grievance, submitted on October 1, 2020. Additionally, the Grievor asserts that the Health and Productivity Program (HPP) process was not correctly followed. 16. While uncertain whether she was referencing the first or second stage of the grievance process, though she maintains that the employer had a 14-day window to respond to the grievance lodged on October 1, 2020. 17. The Grievor notes that, as of the grievance date, no viable accommodation plan had been provided that the employer actively followed. Specifically, WSIB reports reiterated an inability to accommodate an 8-hour shift for the Grievor. 18. The Grievor submits her YSO/RO Accommodation Plan dated September 10 and November 10. 2020 (TAB 8), delineates her capacity to work a maximum of 8 hours per day, adhering to a 7 am to 3 pm schedule. The plans establishes limitations, stipulating that the Grievor would maintain a maximum of 8 hours of work, four days a week, for the ensuing three months, subject to reassessment in October 2020. It further mandates a minimum of 2 consecutive days off and restricts the Grievor from being scheduled to work more than 2 weekends in a month. 19. The Plan delineates additional work assignment details, stipulating that the Grievor would remain in maintenance until September 24, 2020. Starting September 28, 2022, the Grievor would shadow all YSO positions, and from October 12, 2020, she would resume full duties Monday through Thursday, commencing at 7:00 am and concluding at 3:00 pm. The plan also calls for scheduling the Grievor for UMAB training refresher when available. 20. Moreover, the accommodation plan mandates managerial and supervisory support, requiring them to maintain communication with the Grievor and stay informed about plan details. Additionally, it compels the identification and rectification of health and safety issues. 21. The Grievor maintains that the employer did not follow or largely failed to appropriately follow all orders and recommendations incorporated in her accommodation plan. The employer failed to maintain effective communication with the Grievor about her accommodation, unnecessarily delayed planning for her return to work, and refused the Grievor the opportunity to work in her previous YSO position that she was qualified, had been trained on and worked for many years. Grievance 36 (December 12, 2020) (Pay Stub Discrepancy In Pay And Pension Contribution) (TAB 9) 22. The Grievor relies on the facts outlined in paragraph 199 of the original set of particulars and introduces additional details to elucidate the basis for initiating a grievance dated December 12, 2020. Principally, the Grievor raises apprehensions regarding her rate of pay, discrepancies evident in her paycheque, and the amount disbursed subsequent to her return to work on July 6, 2020. The issues under contention encompass: • The Grievor asserts that her Rate of Pay should have increased both in July 2020 and January 2021 as per the pay increase provision of the Collective Agreement (TAB 10). • More specifically, the Grievor believes that as of July 1, 2020, the Rate of Pay for Youth Workers should have increased to $37.93 and that as of January 1, 2021 the Rate of Pay should have increased to $38.98 (TAB 10). • The Grievor points out the fact that the Pay stubs starting from July 13 to December 27, 2020 reflects a Rate of Pay at $37.55 as opposed to the increased Rate of Pay of $37.93 for Youth Workers (TAB 10). -94 - • Further, the fact that the Griever’s Rate of Pay for December 28, 2020 to January 10, 2021 is accurately recorded at $38.98, however, the Grievor was paid at the previous rate of Pay of $37.55 (TAB 10). • Further, the Grievor states that for the Pay stub from December 14, 2020 to December 27, 2020 she was paid a total amount of $3.88 whereas she worked full time. The following two pay stubs for the same period of December 28, 2020 to January 10, 2021, somewhat accounts for the amounts of unpaid hours but the recorded pay rate and deductions are incorrect (TAB 10). • The Grievor further states that the pay stubs for July 27 to Nov 1, 2020 also inaccurately states the OPSEU Pension Trust to be $0.00 (TAB 10). • However, the pay stubs for Nov 2, to Nov 15, 2020, shows that the Pension Trust amount of $742.00 (TAB 10). • Further, the Nov 16 to Nov 29, 2020, pay stubs show a payment of $0.00 towards Pension Trust (TAB 10). • The Nov 30 to 13, 2020 pay stubs show a pension contribution of $235.55 (TAB 10). 23. The Grievor expresses uncertainty and perplexity regarding the irregularities in her remuneration and pension contribution entitlements, noting inconsistencies and inaccuracies. Despite seeking clarification from the employer and receiving an explanation for the observed disparities, the Grievor remains unconvinced, asserting that the provided rationale lacks coherence (TAB 11). Grievance 31: December 21, 2021 (Circumstances and incidents relating to Nov 22 and Nov 23, 2021 events) (TAB 12 ) 24. The Grievor resumed duties on Monday, November 22, 2021, following her last working shift on November 9, 2021. She was informed of a reassignment in Cottage 3 instead of Cottage 6 since Cottage 3 had experienced damages as a result of an incident requiring the reassignment. 25. On Nov 22, 2020 at 9:00 am, the Grievor received a phone call from YSM Fabien inquiring about the completion of her rapid testing. Although the Grievor confirmed the testing had been undertaken, she believes that this communication was an attempt by YSM Fabien to engage in harassment. 26. The Grievor details the institutional circumstances prevailing on November 22, 2021, attributing the prevailing challenges to poor management and mismanagement. Notably, five youth inmates were removed from the program due to assaults and violent behavior, one youth inmate underwent a 14-day quarantine, and school programming was canceled as only three youth inmates expressed willingness to attend. Furthermore, six youth inmates were placed in special programs, and disorderly conduct, including banging doors, yelling, and the disposal of food trays covered in soup into the blue rubber maid bins, was observed. Despite these conditions, YSM Fabien distributed hot coffee to the inmates. The Grievor voiced her concerns to Acting YSM Pat Walsh, who asserted an inability to reverse the transpired events. 28. The Grievor further recollects that while a non-special program-involved youth inmate was prohibited from attending school or the gym, the five youths placed on the special program were permitted outdoor activities and recreation. 29. Additionally, the Grievor observed YP Gabe, who had recently engaged in assaults, utilizing his MP3 player to listen to inappropriate songs and inquiring if others recognized the content. The Grievor, disapproving of the explicit lyrics, especially those containing racial slurs, informed YSM JR Chevrette that she had confiscated two MP3 players belonging to youths Tyler and Jaden. YSM JR Chevrette responded that the songs were from an approved -95 - list. Disregarding this, the Grievor insisted, "I don't care; take it off. I don't like [racial slurs – repeated use of the N word]." 30. Upon concluding her shift, at approximately 2:45 pm, the Grievor and YSO Charlemagne entered the building through the back patio. Subsequently, YSM Garthney, exhibiting trepidation, intercepted the Grievor upon departure, conveying that he had received a direct order from senior manager YSM JR Chevrotte to obtain the MP3 players. The Grievor asserted that YSM JR Chevrotte had concurred with her plan to temporarily secure the MP3 players in her locker for 24 hours. YSM Garthney insisted on obtaining the MP3 players, prompting the Grievor to express her objection to the offensive and degrading nature of the music played by the youth, including the repeated use of the highly offensive N-word. 31. YSM Gartney Johnson issued repeated directives to the Grievor to draft an occurrence report concerning the use of MP3 players. Subsequently, YSM Gartney instructed the Grievor to attend his office. Concurrently, YSO Charlemagne left the premises. The presence of YSM Terry Labbe was then secured by YSM Gartney, who requested Labbe to accompany the Grievor to his office. 32. Within YSM Gartney's office, YSM Terry Labbe concurred with the Grievor's proposal to secure the two MP3 players in her locker. Subsequently, the Grievor, accompanied by YSM Gartney and YSM Terry Labbe, was escorted to her locker, where both managers observed as she placed the MP3 players therein. The Grievor concluded her work shift and left the premises at 14:55 pm. The Grievor further outlines her frustrations with the continued violation of the use of MP3 policy in an email to Elizabeth Husk (TAB 13). 33. The Grievor relies on facts previously provided for in paragraph 233 to 239 of the original set of particulars for the description of events that occurred on November 23, 2021. 34. The Grievor reports note from a medical report that speaks to her medical conditions, including the fact that she was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, cerebral concussion, mild traumatic brain injury, neck strain/sprain, right knee injury, and whiplash as a result of the various incidents of assault she suffered prior to and on November 23, 2021. The Grievor asserts that because of the numerous traumatic exposures over the course of her career, and it appears that she will require a permanent restriction from work in the corrections environment. 35. The Grievor asserts enduring health repercussions, including persistent headaches, sharp pains on the right side of the forehead and temple, nocturnal knee pain, discomfort, heightened sensitivity to noise and light, intermittent sensation of heat on the top of the head, recurrent nightmares, flashbacks, symptoms indicative of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), cognitive impairment manifested as brain fog, difficulty concentrating, inability to multitask, as well as neck and shoulder pain. The Grievor underscores an incident at a funeral six months prior, during which she exhibited memory lapses, such as calling individuals by incorrect names and failing to recall certain names, highlighting the abnormality of her condition. 36. Despite the traumatic effects of her workplace injuries, the Grievor asserts that the employer exhibited a lack of concern for her well-being. Contrarily, the Grievor contends that the employer engaged in additional harassment to compel her to write occurrence reports and procure a medical note substantiating her illness, notwithstanding the significant injury she had sustained (TAB 14). 37. The Grievor contends that Ron Erwin has acknowledged numerous instances of staff mismanagement and persisting health and safety apprehensions, issues which the Grievor has consistently brought to attention. Notably, Mr. Erwin transmitted a note of gratitude to the Grievor's colleague, commending the latter's attendance at the workplace despite facing a tangible risk of assault by an inmate. In the same correspondence, Mr. Erwin extends a specific -96 - acknowledgment to an administrative assistant for assuming the responsibilities of a shift supervisor (TAB 15). The Grievor posits that the mismanagement of personnel, encompassing the deployment of staff to roles lacking requisite training for handling youth violent offenders, reflects a lackadaisical approach by the management towards the wellbeing and safety of its staff. -97 - APPENDIX C GSB File # Grievor Union Grievance # Date of Grievance 2015-1711 Rizzo, Sonya 2015-0618-0013 07-15-2015 2015-1712 Rizzo, Sonya 2015-0618-0014 07-15-2015 2016-0524 Rizzo, Sonya 2016-0618-0003 04-07-2016 2016-0525 Rizzo, Sonya 2016-0618-0004 04-07-2016 2019-0205 Rizzo, Sonya 2018-0618-0019 07-19-2018 2019-0500 Rizzo, Sonya 2019-0618-0002 03-29-2019 2019-0520 Rizzo, Sonya 2019-0618-0003 01-24-2019 2019-0521 Rizzo, Sonya 2019-0618-0004 03-29-2019 2019-0522 Rizzo, Sonya 2019-0618-0005 03-29-2019 2021-2118 Rizzo, Sonya 2021-0618-0002 11-12-2021 2021-2119 Rizzo, Sonya 2021-0618-0003 11-12-2021 2021-2120 Rizzo, Sonya 2021-0618-0004 11-12-2021 2021-2182 Rizzo, Sonya 2021-0618-0005 09-19-2021 2021-2183 Rizzo, Sonya 2021-0618-0006 09-19-2021 2021-2184 Rizzo, Sonya 2021-0618-0007 09-19-2021 2021-2186 Rizzo, Sonya 2021-0618-0009 09-19-2021 2021-2188 Rizzo, Sonya 2021-0618-0011 09-19-2021 2021-2190 Rizzo, Sonya 2021-0618-0013 09-19-2021 2021-2795 Rizzo, Sonya 2021-0618-0023 12-21-2021 2022-11844 Rizzo, Sonya 2020-0618-0005 02-10-2020 2022-11845 Rizzo, Sonya 2020-0618-0006 01-28-2020 2022-11846 Rizzo, Sonya 2020-0618-0007 10-01-2020 2022-11847 Rizzo, Sonya 2020-0618-0008 11-13-2020 2022-11848 Rizzo, Sonya 2020-0618-0009 12-12-2020