Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-3753.Louis.12-05-29 Decision Crown Employees rieva nce Settlement oard 1Z8 l. (416) 326-1388 x (416) 326-1396 t des griefs es employés de la t Z8 l. : (416) 326-1388 léc. : (416) 326-1396 UNION#2008-0502-0019 IN THE MATTER ARBITRATION THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD ETWEEN G B Suite 600 180 Dundas St. West Toronto, Ontario M5G Te Commission de règlemen d Couronne Bureau 600 180, rue Dundas Oues Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1 Té Té Fa GSB#2008-3753 OF AN Under B Ontario Public Sployees Union Union The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) Employer ervice Em (Louis) - and - BEFORE Daniel Harris Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION lmes LLP FOR THE EMPLOYER Jane Letton Ryder Wright Blair & Ho Barristers and Solicitors Services ractice Group Susan Munn Ministry of Government Labour P Counsel HEARING May 14, 2012. - 2 - Decision [1] This grievance alleges that the grievor was subjected to racial discrimination at the hands of her co-workers. She says that she reported the situation to her manager, her director and to human resources personnel, but no action was taken. The Union says that there were violations of articles 2, 3 and 9 of the Collective Agreement. [2] The Union has closed its case. The Employer introduced a motion to non-suit the grievance, and the parties argued their respective positions. [3] The standard to be applied in determining a non-suit motion is set out in Re Allin GSB 2008-1407 (Dissanayake) at paragraph 10, which reads in part as follows: . . . Thus the instant motion must be upheld if the union has failed to adduce evidence sufficient to support its claim. In assessing sufficiency, the Board must determine whether the union has proven its case on the balance of probabilities, if its witnesses are believed and the benefit of any inferences to be drawn are ruled in the union’s favour. [4] Vice-Chair Dissanayake reached that summary after reviewing the Board’s decisions in Re Whan GSB 2003-3446 (Dissanayake) and Re Gareh GSB 1998-1665 (Brown). There are other observations from the cases that are helpful. These include that the test is whether some evidence exists to support the claim that requires an answer or explanation from the other side, viva voce evidence as well as documentary evidence must be considered and where a non-suit motion is granted a written decision with reasons will follow. However, where it is dismissed, no reasons will be given. - 3 - [5] The grievor gave evidence as to the facts set out above and her physician testified as to the impact on her health. [6] Having regard to all of the evidence given to date, and the submissions of the parties, I am satisfied that the employer’s non-suit motion must fail. The union’s evidence is sufficient to prove its case on a balance of probabilities, if its witnesses are believed and the benefit of any inferences to be drawn are ruled in the union’s favour. Dated at Toronto this 29th day of May 2012. Daniel Harris, Vice-Chair