Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-0524.Watts.97-11-06ONrARIO CROWNEMPLOYEES GRIEVANCE -1111 SETTLEMENT BOARD EMPLOYESDELACOURONNE DEL'ONrARIO COMMISSIONDE REGLEMENT DESGRIEFS 180DUNDASSTREETWEST,SUITEBOO,TORONTOONM6G1Z8 180,RUEDUNDASOUEST,BUREAUSoo,TORONTO(ON)M6G1Z8 TELEPHONErrELEPHONE:(416)326-13 FACSIMILEITELECOPIE:(41CJ)32CJ-13 GSB#524/94 OPSEU#940656 INTHEMATTEROFANARBITRATION Under THECROWNEMPLOYEESCOLLECTIVEBARGAININGACT Before THEGRIEVANCESETTLEMENTBOARD BETWEEN OPSEU(Watts) Grievor -and- theCrowninRightofontario (MinistryofCommunity&SocialServices) Employer BEFORE FORTHE UNION L.Mikus N•.Roland Counsel Roland,Jacobs Barristers&Solicitors Vice-Chair FORTHE EMPLOYER HEARING S.Mason Counsel LegalServicesBranch MinistryofCommunity~Socialservices November9,1995 January15,16,17,1996 February9,1996 June26,1996 September5,6,9,10,18,19,1996 October21,1996 November4,21,1996 Thegrievor,KathiWatts,beganworkingfortheMinistryofCommunityandSocialServices, CorrectionalServices,in1981asasummerstudent.ShewasinitiallyhiredasaParoleClerkina contractposition,whichlastedforalmostsixyears.Herdutiesweremainlyclericalatthetime, althoughshedidattendParoleBoardhearings.Shewasinterestedinobtainingapositionasa ProbationandParoleOfficerandtookatw0-yearProbationOfficerTrainingCourseatYork University.DuringthattimesheworkedforthreeyearsasavolunteerProbationOfficerin EtobicokeandreceivedanawardfromtheEtobicokeFamilyCourtforworkshehaddonewith youngoffenders.InJuneof1987shewasofferedanunclassifiedpositionreplacingaParoleOfficer onsickleaveandwassubsequentlyaskedtoworkinanother contractpositionbyMr.RickPartridge, whowasthesuperintendentoftheEtobicokeProbationOffice.Shewasapproachedbythe supervisorofProbationaryServicesinNorth Yorkwhohadreceivedgoodcommentsaboutherfrom hertwoprevioussupervisorsandwasofferedanunclassifiedpositionatthatoffice.Sheworked thereinthatcapacityuntilJuneof1990whenshewasthesuccessfulapplicantforafulltime classifiedpositionasaParoleOfficer2(P02). Throughoutmostofherlifetime,morethantwenty-threeyears,thegrievorhasbeenplaguedby numerousmedicalproblemsresultingfromherdiabeticcondition.Sheiswhatisreferredtoasa ,"brittle"diabetic,whichmeansthatshehashaddifficultymaintainingappropriatebloodsugarlevels. Atonepointsheusedaninsulinpumptoensureacontinuousstreamofinsulinwhichshouldhave resultedinmorestablebloodsugarlevels.Unfortunately,shesufferedfrominsulinshockseveral timesandthepumpwasfinallydiscontinuedwhenitwasdiscoveredthatshehaddevelopeda , sensitivitytooneofthefastactinginsulin. 1 2 In1986 shebegandisplayingsymptomsofkidneydamageandbyNovemberof1989 hadlosther sightcompletelyasaresultofcomplicationsofkidneyfailure,acommoncomplicationofdiabetes. Shewasadvisedbyherphysiciansthatsheshouldconsiderakidneytransplant.Itwastheiropinion that,ifshedeclinedthetransplant,shewouldbepermanentlyblindwithinashortperiodoftime. Althoughtheycouldofferhernoassurances,theysuggestedthatifshereceivedakidneytransplant, hereyesightmightimprove.Atthetimeshewasretainingabout60poundsofexcesswaterasa resultofherkidneyfailureandrequiredextensivepreparationforhertransplant.Thegrievor,even thoughshewasanunclassifiedworkeratthetime,wastoldthattheMinistrywouldgiveheran unpaidleaveofabsencetodealwithhermedicalproblemsandthat,whenhertransplantwas completed,shecouldreturntoworkinherformerposition.Thisunusualofferwasbasedprimarily ontherecommendationofhersupervisor,Mr.MarcLevine. ByJanuaryorFebruaryof1990itwas clearthatshewasdesperatelyinneedofatransplant.She hadvirtuallylosthersightandwasabletodiscernonlyshadows.Shewasrequiredtouseawhite cane.Herwaterretentionhadincreasedtoabout 80 poundsandshewasunabletowalktotheend ofthedriveway.Duringthattimeshecontinuedtotakecoursestowardscompletingherparole officertrainingcourseatYorkUniversity,successfullypassedallofherexams,appliedforandwas .grantedaclassifiedfull-timeposition. OnApril9,1990,shehadherkidneytransplant.Hereyesightimprovedimmediately.Thingswere stillblurredbutshecouldreadprintwithgoodlightingandhighpoweredmagnification.OnJune 11, 1990,shereturnedtoworkasaParoleOfficer2.Mr.MarcLevinewashersupervisor.Even I 3 thoughshewasabletoreturntoworkveryshortlyafterhertransplant,shewasstillrequiredtotake asignificantnwnberofleavesfromworktoattendforbloodtests.Initiallyshewasrequiredtohave dailytests.Thatdecreasedtotwiceaweekandthenweeklyandfinallymonthly.Shecontinuedher contactswiththeCNIBandcontinuedtouseawhitecane.Aswell,becauseshewasretainingwater duetoherkidneyfailure,shedevelopedmacularedema,whichisessentiallyanexcessofwaterin theeye.Shethendevelopedcataracts. InFebruaryof1992shehadcataractsurgeryonbotheyes.Withinacoupleofweeksbotheyeshad cloudedoveragainandherphysiciandidavitrectomy,whichisanextractionofthecloudyfluidin .thevitreousfluidoftheeye.Duringtheprocedurehediscoveredafilmoverherretina,whichhe triedtoremove.Themembrane,however,wasfmnlyattachedtotheeyeandhiseffortsresultedin profusebleeding.Asaresultofthatsurgery,shelostallsightinbotheyes.Thedoctorsadvisedher thatitwastrawnaticandthatthevisionwouldreturn,whichitultimatelydid,althoughonlyinher .lefteye.Herrighteyeremainscloudyandapparentlywillnotimprove.Evenatthehearingletters orpicturescontinuetoappearbrokenupandshemustcloseherrighteyetoread.Becauseofher problemswithherlefteye,herdepthperceptionispoor,whichaffectshermobility.Shewasafraid toundergofurthersurgerybut,inFebruaryof1994,consentedtoanothersurgicalprocedureforher cataracts.ThissurgerywassuccessfulandhervisionImprovedquiteabit.Forawhileshecould seemoreclearly.Howeveratthetimeofthehearinghereyeshadbegantocloudoveragain. Asaresultofhersightimpairmentshewashavinggreatdifficultyinhermobility..Shehad contractedtheCanadianInstitutefortheBlind(CNIB)forinstructionsandadviceonmanagingwith 4 limitedsightinanefforttomaintainherindependence.Inthefallof1994itwassuggestedthatshe considerusingaguidedog.Herjobrequiredthatshemeetwithyoungoffendersandtheirfamilies, attendatcustodyhearings,groupandfosterhomes,meetingswithotheragencies,parentsandcourt attendances.Shewasnotabletoreadstreetsignsandhaddifficultymanoeuvringstairsand ? escalators.Itwassuggestedaguidedogwouldgivehermoremobility.Aswellitwouldbemore safe.SheinvestigatedaCanadianguidedogschoolandwastoldthattherewasapproximatelya two-yearwait,unlessshecouldenterthesummercourseimmediately.Shewasunabletodosoand investigatedsomeAmericanschools.ShespoketoaschoolinRochester,Minnesotaandwastold thatshewouldberequiredtoattendforamonthattrainingschooltomakesurethatshecould handletheguidedogbeforeitwouldbereleasedtoher.Shesentinherapplicationwiththe necessarymedicalreports,attendedschoolandwasgivenaGermanShepherd.Ultimatelyheturned outtobeapoorchoice.Shewasaverystrongdogwhochasedotherdogsandsquirrelsandpulled thegrievoroffofherfeetindoingso.ShecalledthetrainingschoolinRochesterandwasadvised totryachokecollar,whichshedidwithoutsuccess.Finallythedogdraggedheracrossthelawn anddislocatedhershoulder.Atthatpointsherequestedthetrainingschooltakethedogback,which theydidinearlyApril.Becauseofthedislocatedshoulder,thegrievordevelopedaninfectionwhich tooksometimeforthedoctorstoidentify.Ultimatelytheydidexploratorysurgeryandfoundalarge pocketofinfectioninhershoulder.That'necessitatedanextendedperiodofabsencefromwork.She madetwomoreattemptstoobtainaguidedogandultimately,inJulyof1994,didreceiveonethat workedwellwithher.Thatnecessitatedanotherextendedabsencefromwork. As.well,becauseshewasonroutineimmunosuppressantdrugstopreventrejectionofher 5 transplantedkidney,herbody'sdefencemechanismsweresuppressedandshewasvulnerabletoany fluorcoldvirusthatwascirculating.Shetooklargedosesofantibioticstocombattheseminor illnesses,someofwhichweresuccessful,someofwhichwerenot.Theseconstantproblemswith variousillnessescreatedhavocwithherdiabetes. Itwas verydifficultforhertocontrolherblood sugarsandshesufferedfromhypoglycaemia,highbloodsugarsandacidoses.Becauseherdiabetes wasoutofcontrol,herkidneyfunction,hereyesightandhercirculationinthesmallbloodvessels inparticularwereaffected.Hermoodsfluctuatedconsiderably.Sometimesherthinkingwas confusedandatonepointshepassedoutintheofficeasaresultofhypoglycaemia.Inshort,allof hermedicalproblemsimpactedoneachothertothepointthathermedicalconditionwasunstable onallfronts.Itwasherevidencethatthroughoutthistimeshewasexpectedtofulfilherdutiesas aP02.Shewasabletodosousingacomputerandamagnifyingglass. InJanuaryof1995thegrievordecidedtomakeaconcentratedefforttocontrolherlifeandbegan takingTaiChiclasses.Shebecameinvolvedinanexerciseprogramwhichresultedinablisteron theballofherfoot.Herphysicianprescribedantibiotics,withoutsuccess.BytheendofMayshe hadseenaplasticsurgeonwhoputherfootinacastandagainprescribedmassivedosesof antibiotics.Tendayslaterthecastwasremovedandherfoothadimproved.Shewasputbackin acastforanotherthreeweeks,thistimewithoutanyantibiotics.Whenthatcastwa~rremovedthe blisterhadbecomelargeranddeeper.Ultimatelythegrievordevelopedaninfectioninherlegthat waslifethreateningandunderwentabelow-the-kneeamputation.ShewasoffworkfromJuneuntil midOctoberasaresult.ShehadhersurgeryinJulyandwastransferred'toarehabilitationcentre inAugust,atwhichtimeshewasgivenatemporaryprosthesis.Whileshewastrainingtobecome 6 proficientwithherprosthesisshedevelopedblisters,whichcontraindicatedtheuseoftheprosthesis. Asaresultshewasconfinedtoawheelchair.Atthetimeofthehearingshehadjustreceivedher permanentprosthesisandwasstillintheprocessofadjustingtoit.Shehasbeenadvisedthatthe arteriesinherlegsare60to80%occludedandthatthefutureprognosiswithrespecttoherleftleg isunclear.Aswellhereyesightisbecomingworseandsheisconcernedthattheaveragelifeofa transplantedkidneyisbetween8and11yearsandshemaybefacedwithadecisionregarding anothertransplantatsomepointinthefuture. Whileshewaswaitingforhertransplantin1990,shebecameawarethattheMinistrywas consideringimplementingtheuseofcomputersinthedepartment.Sincesheha~everyexpectation ofreturningtoworkshedecidedthatitwouldbeprudentforhertoinvestigatetechnicalaidstoassist herinherduties.AttheCNIBshehadbeenlookingatcomputerswithlargeprintscreensorvoice synthesizers.TheCNIBdidaneedsassessment,whichtheysubsequentlyforwardedtothe Employer.ShewastestedonaclosedcircuitTV(CCTV),whichlookslikearegularTVmonitor butenlargesregularprintsignificantly.ShesubsequentlymetwiththeVocationalRehabilitation counsellorsfromtheMinistry,describedherjobdutiesandaskedabouttheaidsavailabletoassist herindoingherwork.TheytestedheronCCTVandtoldherthattheywouldprepareareport.She understoodthattheyweretosupplytheequipmentthatshewouldneecC TheCNIBassessmenthadbeensenttotheVocationalRehabilitationcounsellor,RajJayarajan, outliningwhattheybelievedshewouldneed,whichincludedtheCCTVandavoicesynthesizer (IBMScreenReader)whichwoulddirectthecomputer,bykeystrokes,toreadvariouslinesonthe 7 screentothegrievor.UltimatelyanApplicationtoEmploymentAccommodationFundforPersons withDisabilitieswascompletedforthegrievor.Mr.JohnStuart-Vanderburg,projectofficerwith theMinistryofCommunityandSocialServices,completedtheform.Inithenotedthatthegrievor had"adeterioratingeyeconditionbroughtonbycataractsanddiabeticretinopathy."Underthe' sectionentitled"Budget",he,notedthattheteta!costoftheequipmentneededtoimplementthe recommendationswas$30,500.00.Attachedtothatwasalengthydescriptionofwhatthegrievor neededandwhatwouldberequiredtofulfilthoseneeds. Thatreportstated,inpart,asfollows: JOBDUTIESREQUIRINGACCOMMODATION: TheEmployeeinquestionhaspartialsightbutislikelytoworsenconsiderablywithout muchwarning.Therequestincludesaclosedcircuittelevisionreadingandwriting,amicro computerequippedwithlargeprintdisplay,andvoicesynthesiscapableofaccessingthe Ministry'scomputernetwork. Althoughsharingthe20"colourmonitor,theCCTVandcomputerdisplaycanbeused separatelyorbothatthesametime.Thevoicesynthesiscanechowhatthelargeprint displaysoftwareisdisplayingonthecomputerscreen.Therefore,inspiteofvisionthat fluctuatesagreatdeal,theEmployeeisabletoreadphotocopiesofCourtOrders,document clientfiles,andcompletenecessaryformsandtherebydocumentclientinterviews, telephoneconversations,aswellasreadingandwritingherelectronicmailmessages. HOWMINISTRYHASPRACTISEDRESPONSIBLE.FINANCIALMANAGEMENT BycompletingafunctionalassessmentwheretheEmployeeactivelyparticipates,the Ministryverifiesthatequipmentbeingrequestedis,infact,whatisknowntobeessential. Thereisnovendorattemptingtosellequipmentthatmaynotbenecessary. Theequipmentbeingrequestedisaprovenpackagethatfunctionswithoutincompatibility problemsintherequiredsettingoftheDEECNNetwork. Thesystembeingrequestedcanfunctionwithalltheaccessdevicesbeingrequestedortake awayaccessdevicesnolongerdeemednecessary.Forexample,ifthelargeprintdisplay 8 hardware/softwareandtheCCTVisnolongernecessary,theycanberemovedfromthe systemandreassignedtoanotherEmployee. DETAILEDBUDGET IBMPSTModel57sx IBMTapeBack/UpSystemwith2tapes 20"VGAColourMonitor VistaLargePrintSystem LynxDaughter?CardforCCTV CCTVCamerawithautofocus AutomatedViewingTable IBMScreenReader VoiceSynthesizer(PortableDEC) HPLaserPrinter DECLK250Keyboard DECUserLicense DEMCACardforNetworkConnection IBMDosVersion5.0 QEMMVersion6.0 WordPerfect5.1 TOTALTECHNICALACCOMMODAnONCOST: $3,800.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $3,365.00 $1,500.00 $3,380.00 $1,350.00 $800.00 $2,100.00 $1,200.00 $300.00 $250.00 $600.00 $150.00 $150.00 $300.00 $22,245.00 WORKSTATIONBACCOMMODATIONREQUIREMENTS: RECOMMENDATIONS; Tobeginwith,Kathiwillneedtoincreaseherworksurfacetoaminimumofelevenlinear feet.FivefeetforeveryET,fivefeetforequipment,withlegclearance,andthreefeetof legclearanceintheremainingelevenfeetforotherwork.However,thisincreaseinwork surfacecannotcompromiseherclientmeetingspacecomprisedoftwochairsandasmall sidetable.Thissidetableshouldbeequippedwithawann,taskoflocalizingoflightsource forthepurposeofwelcomingsightedguests. Herworkstationshouldincludethefollowing: Fivelinearfeetofmanualstorage Threefiledrawers Oneboxdrawer Onearticulatedorpulloutkeyboard Thelightinggridforthemostpartshouldbedecamped.Theremainingtubeshouldbe replacedwithwarmfluorescenttubes.. 9 InadditionthewindowblindsshouldbeaccessibletoKathisothatshecanadjustthelight sourcetosuitherownlevelofcomfort. Kathi,nowthatshewillbeoperatinganautomatedworkstationshouldbeoutfittedwithan ergonomicchairinamidtonedbrightlycolouredfabricfromtheorangetoplumrange. Finally,thefollowingaresomeassociatedcosts: WorkStation Ergochair ComputerTerminalSupport SupportArm(ErgoArm)IV Total TOTALFUNDREQUEST: TechnicalAccommodations WorkStationAccommodations Taxes,DeliveryandInstallation Charges TOTALFUNDREQUEST: $4,500.00 $600.00 $329.00 $5,429.00 $22,245.00 $5,429.00 $2,800.00 $30,500.00 (Thatbackgroundbringsustothefirstoftheelevengrievancesfiledbythegrievor.It statesas follows: IgrievethatIhavebeendiscriminatedagainstbytheMinistryofCommunityandSocial ServicesinthepersonofMarcLevine,Supervisor,ProbationServices,1000FinchAvenue West,Ste.201,Downsview,Ont.M3J2V5,inviolationoftheCollectiveAgreement, includingbutnotlimitedtoArticleA.IinviolationoftheHumanRightsCodeSec.10(I), partA,Sec.4(1)and4(2).IgrievetoothatIwasdeniedmy.righttounionrepresentation, '"'inviolationoftheColiectiveAgreement. Bywayofremedysherequestedthefollowing: I.ThatIbegiventhepositionofManager,IllegalOptionsProjectthatIwasdenied duetomydisability,oracomparableposition. 2.ThatIreceiveproperaccommodationformydisabilityassetoutbytheneeds assessmentcompletedbyJohnStewartVanderburgoftheQuickResponseTeam (QRT)andanyupdatedassessments,includingbynotlimitedto:computer equipment,visualaids,clericalassistance,properlighting,spacialrequirementand 10 completetrainingonallcomputerplusrelatedequipment. 3.Thatallharassmentofmyselfbymysupervisor,MarcLevine,becauseofmy disabilityandjobaccommodationneedsceaseanddesistimmediately. 4.Thatmysupervisor,MarcLevine,berequiredtoparticipateinacourse/program relatedtoaccommodationof/sensitivitytowardsdisabledEmployees. 5.Thatmyattendancerecordbecorrectedtoaccuratelyreflectmysicktimeoff. 6.Thatmyattendancerecordpluspersonnelfileincluderecognitionofthefactmy sicktimeoffissignificantlyrelatedtomylackofproperjobaccommodationinthe workplace. 7.ThatIreceiveanapology,inwriting,frommysupervisor,MarcLevine. ThepositionatissuewasatemporarydevelopmentalopportunityunderthesupervisionofMr.Rick Partridgeandinvolvedinvestigating.illegaladoptionsinOntarioaswellasworkingwith internationalagencies.Thepositionrequiredsomeonewithinvestigationandcommunicationskills, knowledgeofthecourtsystem,goodreportwritingskillsandtheabilitytoworkindependently.It wouldhavebeenapromotionforthegrievor,eventhoughitwasatemporarycontractpositionof onlysixmonthsduration.Accordingtothegrievor,anotheremployee,Mr.PeterHoag,hadbeen expectedtotakethepositionbuttoldthegrievorthathewasnotinterested.Sheaskedhimifhewas awareofanyoneelsewhohadexpressedaninterestandwastoldtocallMr.Partridge.Thegrievor didandtoldhimthatshewasinterestedindiscussingtheposition.Mr.Partridgetoldherthathe wouldbedelightedtohaveheraspartofhisteamprovidedthatMr.Levineapprovedhertransfer. ThisconversationtookplaceinearlyFebruaryof1994.ThegrievortalkedtoMr.Levineaboutthe transferandtoldhimthatMr.PartridgehadsaidthatshecouldhavethejobaslongasMr.Levine approved.Mr.Levinesuggestedtothegrievorthattheremightbeotheremployeesmoreinterested inthepositionthanherandtoldherthathewouldhavetomakeinquiries. JustpriortothatconversationMr.Levinehadrequestedthegrievorattendameetingforthepurposes ofanAttendanceReview.ThemeetingwasscheduledforFebruary8,1994,but,accordingtothe .. 11 grievor,whensheaskedthatthemeetingbetaperecorded,Mr.Levinerefused,atwhichpointitwas adjourned.ThenextdaythegrievorattendedameetingwithMr.Levine,Ms.LauriMcEvoyfrom theQuickResponseTeamandMr.NuzhatJaffriesfromEmploymentEquity.Justpriortothat meetingMr.Levineenteredthegrievor'sofficeandadvisedherthathehadspokentoMr.Partridge andtoldhimthatthegrievorwasunreliableandhadanattendanceproblem.Mr.Levinesuggested heconsidersomeonebesidesthegrievor.Atthetimehedidnotmentionanyotheremployeeby name.WhenthegrievorheardwhatMr.LevinehadtoldMr.Partridgeshewasamazed.Shehad neverhadanycomplaintsaboutherworkandshehadneverbeendisciplined.Infact,Mr.Levine hadwrittenaletterofrecommendationduringhercustodydisputewithherformerspouseovertheir .daughter.Inthatletterhedescribedherasanimportantmemberoftheirteam.Shesuggestedto Mr. Levinethattherewouldbenopointinherapplyingforanyotherpositionsgivenhis recommendation.Hesimplyshruggedhisshouldersandleft.BythenMs.McEvoyandMr.Jaffries hadarrivedfortheirmeetingand,forapproximatelyone-halfanhour,theydiscussedthegrievor's accommodationconcerns.SubsequenttothatmeetingthegrievorandMr.JaffriesmetwithMr. Levineandsherepeatedwhathehadtoldheraboutthedevelopmentalopportunity.Mr.Jaffries remindedMr.Levinethattheissuewithrespecttoasecondmentwasnotjobperformancebutrather whetherthepersonwasavailable.HeremindedMr.Levinethatitwasnotacompetitionandthat Mr.Levine'sonlyconcernshouldhavebeen-Whetherornotthegrievorwasabletodothework.He suggestedthatMr.Levineandthegrievormeetagaintodiscussfuturedevelopmentalopportunities andthemeetingendedonthatnote.ThegrievorsubsequentlyreceivedamemofromMr.Partridge thankingherforherinterestinthepositionandstatingasfollows: Iwasmadeawareofthefactthatanotherindividualhadexpressedaninterestinthis 12 position,besidesyourself.Theindividual'sworkisverywellknowntomeand,infact,she workedformeforfouryears.Inlightofherexperience,educationandclinicalcapacities, Ifeltthatshewas thepersonmostqualifiedtodothejob.Inlightofthesensitivitiesaround thisproject,itisimportantformetohavethemostqualifiedperson. OnFebruary16,1994,thegrievorreceivedamemoadvisingherthatMs.FrancesFongwouldbe workingonathree-monthdevelopmentalopportunitywithMr.Partridgeonaspecialproject.The grievorviewedthismemoasasignificantturningpointinherrelationshipwithMr.Levine.Because theirrelationshiphadbecomemorestrained,shewasevenmoredeterminedtotransfertoanother areaofworkoutsideofMr.Levine'ssupervision.Givenhiscommentsaboutherreliability,she becameconcernedthatshewouldneverbesuccessfulinherattemptstoobtaina-transfer.Sheknew thatanyjobssheappliedforinthefuturewouldbeaffectedbyhisviews. HerconcernswereverifiedwhensheappliedforthepositionofCourtDutyOfficer.TheCourtDuty OfficerpositionrequiredaparoleofficertomonitorproceedingsundertheYoungOffendersAct attheNorthYorkcourthouseonSheppardAvenue,whichisconsideredthe"home"courtforthat office.Thedutiesincludeexplainingtheproceedingsanddispositionofcasestotheyoungoffender andhislherparents,actingasaliaisonbetweenthejudgeandtheyoungoffender,takingnotesfor theparoleofficerwhowouldultimatelyreceivethefile,suggestingand/orapprovingalternative measurestoavoidcourtproceedingsandassistingtheyoungoffendersinobtainingbail,ifnecessary. Thegrievorhadperformedinthatpositionpriortohertransplantand,whenshebecameawarethat thePOassignedtothecourtwasretiring,approachedMr.Levineabouttakingoverhisduties.. AlthoughshedescribedthejobasboringandunappealingtomostPO's,shewasinterestedinit becauseshebelieveditcouldresolvesomeoftheoutstandingproblemsbetweenherandMr.Levine. 13 Courtproceedingsstartedat1000hoursandthegrievorbelievedthatthelaterstartwouldallowher moretimetoschedulemedicalappointmentswithlessdisruptiontoherworkload.Shealso explainedtoMr.Levinethat,becausetheCourtDutyOfficerdidnothaveaclientworkload,any absencesduetoillnesswouldbelessdisruptivetoanyscheduledappointmentswithclientsandother agencies.Whenthegrievorwasabsent,anotherPOhadtotakeoverherassignments,including attendingatscheduledmeetingsand/orreschedulingmeetingsforher.TheCourtDutyposition,on theotherhand,haditsownbackupsystemf0remergencyabsencesand,ifthegrievorhadtobe absentfromwork,thescheduledbackupPOcouldtakeoverherdutieswithfarlessinconvenience totheclientsandthePO's.Aswell,thegrievorlivedacrossthestreetfromthecourthouseand wouldnothavehadtocontendwithice,snoworpublictransportation.Finally,becauseshehad J donethejobinthepast,therewouldhavebeennoneedtotrainherfortheposition. Mr.Levinetoldthegrievorhewouldthinkaboutherrequest.She wassurprisedtobetoldlaterthat Mr.LevinehadhiredanotherPOforthepositionwhohadbeenonacontractpositionintheHalton officeandwholivedinBurlington.SheaskedMr.Levinewhyshewasnotconsideredforthe positionbutheneverresponded.Sheultimatelygainedaccess,throughadiscriminationand harassmentcomplaintshehadfiledagainstMr.LevineundertheWorkplaceDiscriminationand .- HarassmentPreventionPolicy(WDHPP),tomemosinMr.Levine'spersonalfilethatpromptedher tofileagrievanceregardingthedenialoftheposition.HisfirstmemowastoMs.Renwick,Manager ofProbationServicesandstatedasfollows: Subject:IhavediscussedthiswithJeanBlackmore... ...anditlookslikethenextstepisanAttendanceReviewwhenKathireturns.Kathiisinto 14 somuchdenial,andasfaras1amconcerned,hercaseshavebeenseverelyneglectedsince atleastthesummer.Iknowshewillbeaskingfortimeoffformoreeyesurgery(which meansanother3weekssicktime).Thisisadifficultone.Iwanttoimpressuponherthat shedoeshaveoptions(employeecounselling),andpossiblycanbeassistedtofindajob bettersuitedforher,somethingthatdoesn'trequirecaretoclients.Myheartgoesout,but sheisjustnotfunctioning,isbattlinganyonewhocrossesher.Judgeshavecommentedon hersicklyappearance,ProfessionalClinicianshavestatedthatshehassomemajor problems,andfacilitieshavefoundherdifficulttodealwith. Whenshereturns(notthefirstweekthough),Iwillbespeakingtoheraboutanattendance review. Ms.BlackmorewasaconsultantintheHumanResourcesDepartmentatthetime. Anothermemo,datedApril18,1994,wasaddressedtothegrievorfromMr.Levine,althoughitwas neveractuallysenttoherbecauseofinterveningevents.Thatmemostated: TO:KathiWatts Subject:CourtDuty InresponsetoyourquestionastowhyyouwerenotassignedtotheCourtDutyposition Kathi,Iofferthefollowingbywayofexplanation. OperationalRequirements:Basicallyitistheleastdisruptiveoptionto"cover off'acaseload,withlittleornonotice,should youbeill foranyperiodoftime,asopposedto "scrambling"tofindsomeonetocoveroffcourt. Ifyouweretobeoffillforanyperiodoftime, potentially6othercaseloadscouldbedisrupted, asopposedtojustyours. WithTheresacomingin,simply,nocaseloadisdisrupted. WhileIamconfidentthatthepersonIambringingintocoverisappropriate,hardworking andexperienced,IdorecognizeyourinterestagaininperformingastheNorthYorkCourt DutyOfficer.ThisisthesolereasonwhyIhavesaidTheresa'sassignmentwillbelisted as6months,otherwiseIwouldhavesaidatleastoneyear.Attheendofthe6months,I willbeinabetterpositiontoreviewCourtDuty.Shouldyourhealthimprove,whichItruly hopefor,certainlythenyouwouldagainbeconsideredfortheposition. Again,thankyouforyourinterestandIhopeyouareclearerinmyrationale.Myconcerns continuetobewhatisbestforclients,theofficeandmystaff. 15 Thereferenceintheearliermemotojudges'commentsonherappearancearosebeforethegrievor wentoffworkforhertransplant.Apparently,onejudgehadspokentoMr.Levineaboutthefactthat thegrievordidnotlookwell.Mr.Levinesuggestedshewearmake-uptoimproveherappearance. ThegrievortookissuewithMr.Levine'scommentsinthesecondmemo.Shedidnotunderstand hisreferencetotheneedto"scramble"tocoverherabsencessincetherewasaregularlyscheduled backupPOforthatprecisepurpose.Shealsodidnotunderstandwhyhefeltitwouldbeless disruptivetocoveroffherworkasaPO.Herabsencesfromherassignmentsmeantthatherwork hadtobedistributedtootherPO's,whichincludedanotherPOcoveringmeetingswithherclients. Thatcausedmajordisruptiontotheclientsbecauseoftheirneedforanongoingrelationshipwith theirPO.ItwasupsettingforthemtohavetodealwithdifferentPO'swhodidnothave~complete knowledgeofthefile.ItwouldhavebeenfarlessdisruptivetotheclientstoreplaceherintheCourt DutyOfficerposition.Finally,sheunderstoodMr.Levine'smemotostatethat,untilherhealth improved,shewouldnotbeconsideredforanytransfers,whichcausedherconsiderableconcern' sinceherdiabeticconditionwouldneverbecured. AboutthesametimethegrievorappliedforanEmploymentSpecialistposition.Shedidnotgetthe joband,whenshegainedaccesstoMr.Levine'spersonalfile,understoodwhyshewasrefusedthe position.InMayof1994,hehadcompletedaReferenceCheckFormforthecompetition.Inithe identifiedseveralareasofstrengthforthegrievor,statingthatshemetorexceededexpectationin severalcategories.However,hemadeseveralnegativecommentsaswell.Hefirstnotedthatthe' grievor'sattendancerecordwasfarbelowexpectations.Hethenstatedthegrievorhaddifficulty 16 acceptingcriticalfeedbackandthatshebecamedefensiveandargumentativewithassortedagency staff.Whenaskedtodescribethegrievor'sorganizationalskills,Mr.Levineresponded: Belowexpectations.ThisisanareaKathicouldimproveupon,andtohercredit,usedto beastrengthareaforher.Ihavelittledoubt,iffocusedandhealthy,couldagainmake organizationastrengthareaagain. Mr.Levinewasaskedabouthisoverallimpressionofthegrievorandstated: ...GenerallyKathihistoricallyhasbeenregardedasagoodworker,whohastraditionally enjoyedherwork.Asoflate,Kathihashadnumerousmedicalandpersonalproblemsthat havemadeitdifficultforhertoremainfocusedandasdedicatedasshehastraditionally been. Finally,hewasaskedwhetherhewouldrehireher.Hestated: No.-Lossoffocus,confusedpriorities,poorabilitytoacceptconstructivecriticismanda negativeattitude,haveunfortunatelyhurtKathi'seffectivenessanddesireasaMinistry employee. ThatReferenceCheckFormledtogrievancenwnbereight,whichallegesthatMr.Levinemadefalse andderogatorycommentsaboutthegrievor. Thenextgrievancearisesfromcircwnstancesthatoccurredaboutthesametimeasthegrievor becameawareoftheReferenceCheckForm.ShehadthatdocwnentinherhandwhenMr.Levine calledtoaskherifshewasinterestedinapplyingforatemporarysupervisoryvacancy.Shehadjust returnedfromguidedogschoolandMr.Levinehadaskedthatthecompetitionbeheldoveruntilher returntogivehertheopportunitytoapply.TIlegrievor,afterreadingMr.Levine'scommentsin theReferenceCheckForm,knewthatshewouldneverbeconsideredfortheposition,especially sinceMr.Levinewastobeontheselectioncommittee.Shewasunderconsiderablestressatthe timeandsawMr.Levine'sactionsasadeliberateattempttoexacerbatethattension.Heknewthat t':.-: 17 shehadbeeninterestedinobtainingasupervisorypositionandbelievedhewas"settingherupfor disappointment".ShefiledagrievanceallegingthatMr.Levineharassedherandaskingforanorder thattheharassmentcease,thatMr.Levineapologizetoherandthatheprovidewrittenassurances toherthathisactionswouldhavenofutureconsequencesforherprofessionallyorpersonally. WhenthegrievorobtainedaccesstoMr.Levine'scompletefiles,shebecameawareofothermemos ande-mailsconcerningherthatreinforcedherviewthatMr.Levinewasharassingand discriminatingagainsther. DuringthistimethegrievorwasawarethatMr.Levinehadconcernsaboutherattendance.Infact, hehadattemptedtoscheduleanattendancereviewmeetingwiththegrievorandhaddictateda memoinNovemberof1993settingouthisconcerns,.toMs.BlackmoreandMs.Renwick.The memostatedasfollows: IamonthevergeofrequestinganattendancereviewwithKathiWatts.Herlasttwoyears sicktimehavefarexceededtheofficeaverageof6.7days.In1992 shewassickcloseto 30days,and1993,about25dayssofar.Ifeelstronglythatithasbeguntoaffectherwork, bothqualityandquantity.Whilesheisvery ill,inmyopinion,shehasastrong temperament,whichiswhyIneedtomovedelicately(yetforcefully).Sheactually just passedoutdownstairsandhasbeensenttothehospital(probablyduetolowbloodsugar). Iwanttoimpressuponhersheneedstobehealthy,because-itimpactsonotherstaff,i.e.a secretaryhasgonewithher,aP.O.isdogsitting....IknowIamsoundinginsensitive(I promisenottospringitonherthemomentshegetsback).Ifeelakindofcrisesneedsto becreatedforhertobegintomakenecessarychangestotakecareofherself,atleastinthe thingsshecancontrol.Becauseofherstrongpersonality,Isuspectthingswillgetmessy. AsidefromtheProbationer'sshesupervises,Iworryaboutherdaughteraswell.Herex- husbandisfightingforcustodyoftheirdaughter,statingKathiisnotfittoparent,issickly, passesouta10Lnotfarfromthetruthifyouaskme. Dueto illhealth,sheisnolongerdependable,reliable,punctualandgettingherworkdone. 18 Canwelookatadatetomeetwithhersoon?Pleasegivemeacallandallthoughtsare appreciated.Ifyouhaveanyquestions,Iwill tryandfillintheholes. WhenthegrievorreceivedacopyoftheNovember30,1993,memoshewasincensedAlthoughshe hadreceivedthecomputerequipmentrecommended,shewascontinuingtoexperiencedifficulties. Shedidnotknowhowtousetheequipmentand,althoughsomeonehadbeenhiredtotrainher,her trainerswereintheprocessoflearningtheScreenReaderandwereunabletoprovidepropertraining. Aswell,thelightingcontinuedtobeproblematicinherofficeandsheworkedforthemostpartin adarkroomwithahandheldmagnifyingglass.Atthesametimeshewasveryconcernedabouther daughterandthecustodydisputewithherex-spouse.Shetestifiedthatifherex-spouse'slawyer hadseenthatmemoitcouldhavecostherthatcustodyfight.Ironically,atthesametime Mr.Levine ,gavethegrievoralettertopresenttotheCourtonherbehalfpraisingherforbeingavalued employee. Itwas thegrievor'sviewthatMr.Levinehadnorighttomakeanyjudgmentsabouther abilityasaparent.Withrespecttohiscommentsaboutherdependabilityandrelhibility,she concededthatshewashavingmuchdifficultyinkeepingupwithherworkload,butblamedittoa largeextentonherinabilitytohandlethenewcomputerequipment. Oneoftheotherissuesthatraisedallegationsofdiscriminationandharassmentinvolvedthe grievor'sexperiencewith.·herguidedog.Sometimeinmid-199'3shedecidedthatitwouldbeinher bestinteresttoobtainaguidedog.Shereceivedherfirstdoginthefallof1993.Sheexplainedto Mr.Levinethatshehadconcernsgettingaroundonpublictransitusingawhitecane.Shehadto visitclientsinfosterhomes,'grouphomesandinschoolsfromEtobicoketoScarborough,downtown TorontoandNorthYork"and.Sinceshedidnotdrive,shewasobligedtousepublictransit.As 19 well,therewasalotofconstructiongoingoninthecityandaguidedogwouldbeabletorecognize constructionsignsandhelphertoavoidthem.Thedecisiontogetaguidedogwasanindividual decisionbasedonsafetyconcerns.Sheadvisedhimshewouldrequirealeaveofabsencetoattend trainingschool. AsaresultofherdiscussionwithMr.Levine,hewroteamemodatedMay4,1993,toMs. BlackmorewithacopytoMs.Renwickonthesubjectofspecial!compassionateleavewhichreads asfollows: Jean,Thanksforthepackageyousentme.Itistoobadthereisnothinghistoricspecificto Kathi'skindofrequest.Ihatetobea"groundbreaker". Inreviewingthecontent,IhavelittledifficultyinconsideringtograntaSpecial Compassionate3-daypaidleave(Art55). Itis Article30.1whichgivesmetrouble.Iam notsurehowvalidmyreasonsare,butIfeelwhatKathiisrequesting,a4-5weekpaidleave ofabsence,isexcessive.Isaythisafterreadingthematerialyousentmeasmostexamples ofleavegivenareforemergency,unforeseenreasons.InKathi'scase,gettingaGuideDog forherownpersonaluseisvalidandlikelysomethingthatwillbegoodforher.Without beinginsensitive,adogwon'thelpherwriteupPORts,orcompleteanyotherfunctions relatedtobeingaPO.GivenKathihashadadvancednoticewithrespecttotheamountof timeneededtotrain,myconcernisthatsheistakingthingsforgrantedthatshewillget approval.Herfeelingthat"itiscomingtoher".Givenherknowledgeofthetraining,she stillchosetogotoFloridathisweek,spendinghervacationtimeinthisway,makingno allowancesforthepossibilityofneedingtotakevacationtimetogettrained.Infact,had Kathiapproachedmeindicatingthatshewouldliketotakeaone-thirdorone-halfmonth ofvacationtimetoattendthetraining,andwouldtheMinistrysupporttheotherhalf,I mightfeeldifferent,asIthinkthisissomethingreasonableandworkable.IfKathidoesnot geteverythingshedemands,shehasmadeitverycleartomethatshewillgrieveandtake theissuetoHumanRights.. IfeelthatMinistryhascontributedsignificantlytoKathi'sdevelopmentandaccommodation atwork.Purchasesinexcessof$25,000.00forsightenhancingequipment,timeoffto attendARFaddictioncourses,andsupportingherthroughhernumerousillnesses(moresick timeoff),areallissuesforme.Ihavenodoubtthatwehavebeenmorethanfairinour dealingswithKathianddonotwanttolosesightofthisiftheissueisgrieved. Fromthepackageyousentme,Iviewthefollowingthemesrequiredbymanagement. "reasonableness"ofthedecision 20 nondiscriminatory weJlthoughtouLandanyquestionsdeservingofsympathyorofcompassion, employee'sobjectivereasonablebasis Inthegrievor'sviewthememowasunfair.Mr.Levineneverspoketoheraboutusingsomeofher vacationtimeforherguidedogtraining.Shealsodenieddemandingtimeoffforthetrainingcourse butdidstatethatshe·knewitwasherrighttobegrantedthetimeoffandthat,iftheMinistryhad refused,shewouldhavegrievedandfiledacomplaintwiththeHumanRightsCommission.With respecttothereferencetoARF,thegrievorexplainedthatsheattendedthecoursesbecause80-90% oftheyoungoffendersshedealtwithhaddrugoralcoholrelatedproblems,eithertheirsortheir families.Inanyevent,theMinistryofferedtopayfortheARFcourseontheunderstandingthatshe wouldsharewhatevershelearnedatthecoursewithherco-workers.ShefeltthatMr.Levine's commentswithrespecttothatcoursewereunfairandirrelevanttoherrequestforaleaveofabsence. InamemodatedMay17,1993Mr.LevinewrotetoMs.Blackmoreaboutthegrievorasfollows: ~ Inresponse,Kathihasputtherequestinwriting.Herarguments,beingasinglesolesupport Mom,isbasicallyaffordability.Ifshedoesnotgetapproval,shewillnotgetadog.She alsopromisestogrieve,togotoHumanRights...Inmyopinion,shereaJlydoeshave sympathyonherside. Operationally,itwouldnotbeimpossibletocoveroffhercaseloadandwehavedoneit beforeforherpasttransplantandrelatedillnesses. Merlynisthinkingsimilartous,butultimatelyitisuptous.Ihadwonderediftherewas somesortofprecedenteitherProvincially,FederallyorinthePrivateSectoronthisissue, eitherdisallowingitorallowingit. DoesPhilhaveanyinput? Iamafraidwemaybestuck.Iamwillingtotestit,though,takemychances,i.e.offerher somesortofperceived"fair"compromise,i.e.one-halfwewillpay,andone-halfshewill paythruvacationorunpaidleave.YouandIwouldneedto"firmup"whatwespecifically saytoherthough,andthesoonerthebetter. 21 Accordingtothegrievor,thismemowasalsoinaccurateinthatMr.Levineneverspoketoherabout sharingtheresponsibilityforthecosts.Inanyevent,onMay21,1993,anothermemofromMr. Levinetothegrievorregardingguidedogtrainingstatedasfollows: Kathi,withrespecttoyourrequestforpaid(3-4weeks)timeofftotrainforaGuide Dog,Iampleasedtosaypermissionhasbeengrantedforthefullperiod.Iam supportingthisrequestforspecialandcompassionatereasons. Pleaseletmeknowonceyouhaveconfirmedthetimes,inorderthatwemayplanfor appropriatecasecoverage.Tofacilitatetherequest,Iwillneedanote/letterfrom yourDR.confirmingtheneedforadog,givenyourlackofsight.Aswell,Iwill needaletter/document(copytoyoufromthetrainingfacilitywilldo),confirming theexactdatesandtimesforthecourse. Iwishyougoodluckandlookforwardtohavingyou(andyournewfriend)back. NotwithstandingMr.Levine'scommentsinthatmemoregardingtheirsupportforherleaveof absence,Ms.RenwickwroteamemodatedMay25,1993,toMr.Levine,thesubjectbeinglire Kathiaftermath".Thatm6mostatedasfollows: Andhaveyoubothgiventhoughttotheresponsewhensomeoneelseintheofficeistoo allergictothedogtocometoworkorwhatwewilldowhenitbitesaclient?Nothingis easybutIthinkwehavesomesatisfactionthatwearedoingtherightthing;inthespiritof EmploymentEquity,forKathiandfortheMinistry,ensuringthatwehavedocumentation tosupportgrantingaleavewithpayforthissubstantialamountoftime/taxpayer'smoney. Youwillhavebothdoneathoroughjobofsortingthroughthisandmakingagooddecision. Whenthegrievorreceivedthismemoitwasthefirsttimeshebecameawareofanyconcernsabout otherstaffbeingallergictoherdogoraboutthedogbiting'anyone.ShedidnotknowwhatMs. Renwickmeantwhenshereferredto"Kathiaftermath". Inthecollectionofmemosthatthegrievorreceived,onewasdatedJanuary27,1994,fromJoyce, Green,whowasasecretaryforsomeofthePO'sintheofficeandwhohadbeenassignedtothe 22 grievor.ThememowastoMr.Levineandstated: WhenKathiwasindoggyschoolthiscasewasassignedtoher... Thegrievorconsideredthismemotobeoffensive.Inherview,itridiculedhereffortstoobtaina guidedog.Nosuchcommentswereevermadedirectlytoher.Thatwaswhenthegrievor discoveredwhatanactiveroleMs.Greenhadplayedherattendance.ShewasawarethatMs.Green keptarecordoftheemployee'stimeoff,butthememosindicatedamoreconcentratedattentionto Ms.Watts'attendancethanshehadbeenawareof.Forexample,amemodatedDecember10,1993, fromMs.GreentoMr.Levineaboutthegrievorsimplystated"arrivedtodayat12:30P.M."On March2,1994,Ms.Greenwroteamemoto Mr.Levineaboutthegrievorthatstated"leftat3:45 P.M.withGilestoalsopickupKari".TheGilesreferredtointhememoisanotherprobationofficer andKariisthegrievor'sdaughter. OnMayof1996Ms.Greenagainwroteae·mailtoMr.Levineaboutthegrievorthatstatedas follows: "Mr.EastwoodjustphonedsayingKathihadtakenhimrightdownKeeleStreetASKED METOLOOKUPgEORGEhARVEYSCHOOL.asTHEPHONESWEREBUSYBY THETIMEiGOTBACKTOHIMHEHADFOUNDWHERETHESCHOOLWAS.hE SAIDHEWOULDNOWGOONTOHISAPPTATsTRACHANHOUSEANDBE BACKAT2:30P.M.THEYLEFTAT10:45ANDIT'SNOW11:30A.M.(sic) Inanot!!ermemodatedMay27,1994,Ms.GreenwrotethefollowingtoMr.Levineaboutthe gnevor: KathiyesterdaydisappearedforaratherlongtimeandIwenttothewashroomtoseeifshe hadfainted....shesaidshewasnotfeelingwellandthatherpressurewasdown. Thismorningat10:10A.M.shecalledinsick... AmemoofMay17,1994,aboutthegrievorstated: 23 '.'justcomeinat10:10A.M."HerdatebooksaidSubsidyInterviewYorkCentre. OnMay30,1994,threememoswerewrittenbyMs.Greenaboutthegrievor.Thefirstonestated: Cameinatabout9:30A.M.andit'snow10:20andshehasaskedDavidGilestotakeher toKari'sschooltogetKariassheisnotwell,andthentakethembothtoherDoctoron KeeleandWilson. Davehasmarked11:30return... KathihasS1.Cyrils,Drandreturn? Thenextat1:30P.M.stated: "backat1:40P.M.Kariintow...." Thefinalmemowaswrittenat4:05intheafternoonandstated: "KathiandKarileftat4:00P.M." AfinalmemodatedJW1e27,1994,byMs.GreentoMr.Levine,thesubjectofwhichwas"Monday" statedasfollows... "Forwhatit'sworth....lamgladIamoffthatfrontdesk.... KathiandEastwoodhavecontinuallyandespec.whenyouarenotherearebehindclosed doorstwittering. Josiesaidshecouldfeelthetensionoutthereandtheofficeisnotthesameasitusedtobe. IfeelthatKathiiscarryingonhervendetta...thuscreatingtensionallaround....Iam surprisedbeingropedintoherproblemsasmuchasheisseemstobesupportingher. Idon'tthinkIwouldwantherinmycottage! AfterreadingtheseprivatememosfromMr.Levine'sfilesthegrievorbegantoreflectonMr. Levine'sattitudetowardsherandrecalledastaffmeetingatQueen'sParkinthefallof1993wherein sheallegesthatMr.Levinemadeanuncalledforremarkabouther.AnotherP.O.wasassistingher acrossthestreetwhenMr.Levinewalkedbyandsaid"don'tfallforthatcrap." 24 Thefirstgrievancefiledbythegrievor,inadditiontoherallegationsconcerningtheillegaladoption projectposition,includedallegationsofdiscriminationandafailuretoaccommodate.Itwasdated April18,1994,and,atthattime,alloftheequipmentthatithadbeensuggestedthegrievorobtain hadbeenputintoplace.Thegrievor,however,hadsomeconcernsthatadditionalequipmentbe boughtforthefuturesincetheprognosisforhersightseemedverydismal.Aswell,thegrievor continuedtohavecomplaintsabouttheEmployer'slackofaccommodation.Sheneverreceived assistance inensuring thattheproperlightingwasinplaceandtheglareonherTVscreencontinued tobeproblematic.Shewasinaverysmalloffice,notwithstandingthefactthattherewerethree largerofficesinthedepartment.Ms.McEvoyhadattemptedtoshowthegrievorhowtoworkthe CCTVandanothercomputeranalysthadattemptedtoteachhertheScreenReaderprogram. However,~neitherofthem knewenoughabouttheequipmenttotrainherproperly.SheandMr. Levinehadhadmanyongoingtalksandheknewaboutherdifficulties.Shehadthoughtthathewas makingeffortstohelpher.HeandshehadbeenincontactwiththeQuickResponseTeam.The Ministryhadarrangedforacomputertrainertoteachthegrievorbutshefeltshestillwasnotgetting enoughassistance.ShealsospoketoMs.McEvoy,theaccomodationspecialistfortheMinistry,on anongoingbasisaboutherproblemsbutneverdidreceiveadequatetraining.Atonepointthe grievorhungapieceofblackbristolboardoverthewindowtostopthereflectionofthelightonthe computerscreen.Shecontinuedtouselier ownmagnificationequipmentbecauseshewasunable tooperatethecomputergeneratedequipment. Asmentionedprevioulsy,thegrievorgainedaccesstowhatshecharacterizedasa"secret"fileMr. Levinehadaccumuatedconcerningher.ShehadbecomeawareoftheexistencethefileataStep 25 2grievancemeetingwhenthesubjectofherWDHPPcomplaintarose.AtaStage2grievance meeting,Ms.James,asupervisorintheNorthYorkoffice,handedherMr.Levine'sfile.Thegrievor startedtoreviewitwhilewaitingforherUnionSteward,DavidEthier,.andnoticedafewofthe memosMs.GreenhadwrittentoMr.Levine.BeforeMr.Ethierarrived,Ms.Greencameintothe officeandtoldherthatMs.Jameswanteditbacktochecksomething.Thegrievorgavethefileto Ms.Greenand,whenshepassedherdesklateronherwaytoMs.James'office,noticedthatshestill hadthefile.BythattimeMr.Ethierhadarrivedandthegrievortoldhimwhatshehadseen.When Ms.Greencamebackwiththefilethegrievornoticedthatthee-mailsthatshehadseenhadbeen removed.SheimmediatelywenttoMs.James'officeandtoldherwhathadhappened.Ms.James~ thegrievorandMr.Ethiermetintheboardroom,reviewedthefileandfoundthat13documentshad beenremoved,themajorityofwhichwerememosfromMs.GreentoMr.Levineaboutthegrievor. Ms.Jamesapologized,obtainedthemissingdocumentslaterthJitdayandprovidedthemtothe gnevor. Ashasbeenmentionedpreviously,inDecemberof1993,Mr.Levinehaddeterminedthatan attendancereviewmeetingwasinorder.However,thegrievorwasinhospitalatthetimeanddid notreturntoworkuntilFebruary.OnFebruary4,1994,Mr.LevinewrotealettertoMs.Blackmore abouttheattendancereviewstating·asfollows: WithrespecttoKathi'sattendancereview,shehasapproachedtheEmploymentEquity Mangerandhasstartedtocomplaintoherthatthereasonsheisoffhastodowithlackof properaccommodation.Sheisoffsickduetoheadaches,duetoeyestrain,eventhoughshe hastheenhancedequipment.IindicatedtoMs.Jaffreythattheattendancereviewand ,employmentequityissuesareseparateforTuesday'smeeting,butIwouldbehappyto discussanyconcernswithher,Kathi,andKathyMacPhersonfromtheQRT.Infact,Ido haveameetingwiththemnextweek. 26 WhileIpromisetokeepmycomposurenextTuesdaywithKathi,ofcourseIhavenever heardofeyestrainasanissueofherbeingoff.Ihaveonlyheardofinfection, inappropriate/non-compatiblemedicineasreasons,aswellaspassingout. TheattendancereviewmeetingwaseventuallyscheduledforTuesday,February8,1994,andthe grievorattendedwithaUnionSteward.Sherequestedthatshebeallow~d totaperecordthemeeting becauseofdifficultiesshehadtakingnotes.Mr.LevineandMs.Blackmoreobjectedandsuggested thatsinceataperecorderwasnotallowedingrievancemeetings,itshouldnotbeallowedatthis attendancereviewmeeting. ItwasagreedthattheywouldadjournthemeetingsothatMs. Blackmorecouldseekadvice. OnMarch15,1994,Mr.LevinewroteamemotoMs.Blackmoreaboutthegrievorstatingas follows: MyunderstandingisthatKathiwillbeofffortherestofthisweek,allofnextweekandcomeinhalf daysthefollowingweektoallowherinfectedbacktoheal.ThusIbelievewewillneedto rescheduleourmeetingwithher.WhileIstillhavemanyconcernsre:theproposedapproachin delayingtheattendancereview,Iremainopenandflexible. In otherwordswewillseewhat happens,butmyinstincttellsmeKathiwiUfeel/isfeelingverypowerful,andsubsequentlyvery demanding. Willupdateyouonherhealthstatuswhenitismadeclearertome. TheinfectedbackreferredtoinMr.Levine'smemorelatestotheaccidentinwhichthegrievor's guidedogpulledhertotheground. Theattendancereviewmeetingneverdidtakeplace.OnJuly5,1994,Mr.Levinewroteamemo toMs.Blackmoreaboutthegrievorstatingasfollows: "Kathijustwalkedintomyoffice,withcrutchesandacast,havingjustbrokenherleg.Kathihas norecollectionoffallingorhurtingherleg,onlythatitstartedtohurtlastnight.Startedtoflareup andenlarge.TheDoctorsx-rayed,however,duetotheinflammation,didnotseeanything. 27 MyquestionisshouldIbeencouraginghertofilloutaworker'scompensationform?IworryKathi might"lateron"allegesomethinghappenedtoherlegintheofficeorduringworkinghours. Anythoughts? Thegrievorfeltthat Mr.Levine'smemowasunfairandinaccurate.Thegrievordidtellhimthatshe wasnotsurewhenshehurtherlegbuttoldhimthatitwasprobablyduringagayprideparadeshe hadparticipatedin.Sheneversuggestedtohimthatithappenedatworkandneverdiscussedany worker'scompensationclaimswithhim. OnJune9,1994thegrievorfiledanothergrievancewhichstatedasfollows: IgrievethatAndreLafantasie,manager,financeandadministration,thedeputyminister's designeedidharassmentmeatthestage2grievanceoftheCollectiveAgreementinthatthe saidAndreLafantasieattemptedtointroducetranscriptsoftheinformalhearingsheldon February24/94,March25/95andApril5/94withoutnotificationorpermissionfromthe grievorwrittenororal.Atstage2nopermissionwasgiventoAndreLafantasiebythe grievororthegrievor'srepresentativetointroducewrittenororalevidencefromthe informal h~arings. ThethreedatesreferredtointhegrievanceinvolvedmeetingsaboutherWDHPPcomplaintwhich thegrievor, Mr.Levine,Ms.Renwick,Ms.BlackmoreandMr.Ethierhadattended.Her understandingwasthatthediscussionswereinformalandseparateanddistinctfromanygrievance discussions.NothingthatwassaidintheWDHPPmeetingswastobeusedinanysubsequent grievancemeetings.Shetookhertaperecordertothosemeetingsandtranscriptsweremadefrom hertaperecordings,althoughitwasagreedtheywouldnotbeofficialtranscriptsofthemeeting. Thosetranscripts,inherview,werenottobeusedoutsideofthosemeetings.Shegavethetapesto theMinistryofficialsa~acourtesysothattheycouldpreparethetranscripts.Whenshearrivedat theStage2grievancemeeting,Mr.Lafantasietoldherthathehadbeengiventhetapes,provided thetranscriptsandstatedthathewantedtodiscussthem.Whenthegrievoraskedhimwhohad 28 givenhimthetapes,hestatedthathecouldnotremember.ThegrievorfeltthatthefactthatMr. LafantasiehadbeengiventhetranscriptsandtapesoftheWDHPPmeetingsjeopardizedthevalidity oftheStage2grievancemeetings. ThegrievorhadgiventhosetapestoMerlynGreen,themanagerofprobationaryservicesandshe filedagrievancedatedthesameday,thatisJuly9,1994,allegingthatMs.Greenhadprovided transcriptsoftheinformalhearingstoMr.Lafantasiewithoutnotificationorpermission.Inthat grievanceshewasseekingawrittenapologyfromMerlynGreen,awithdrawalofthetranscriptsand anexpungingofallinformationrelatingtothematterregardinghergrievance. ThefifthgrievancefiledbythegrievorisdatedthesamedaythatisJune9,1994,andallegesthat atameetingonJune3,1994,Mr.Lafantasiestated"ifyou'reinterestedinopportunitiesitwould beunfortunateifalldiscussionofjobopportunitiessuddenlycomestoastandstillbecausewe're involvedinanadversarialsituation."Duringthemeetingthegrievorexpressedconcernsto Mr. LafantasieandMs.BlackmoreoverthefailureoftheMinistrytoaccommodateherdisabilitybut, moreimportantly,concernsoverjobopportunitiesthathadbeendeniedherandcommentsthathad beenmadeaboutherbecauseofherdisability.Mr.Lafantasietoldherthathecouldnotdiscussthe jobopportunitiesinthatmeetingbecauseitwasconvenedsolelytodealwithhergrievance.The grievorunderstoodhimtomeanthatifsheproceededtoaStage3meeting,shewouldnotreceive anymorejobopportunities.Shefeltthreatenedandthatifshe"didn'tplayball,shewouldn'tget ahead."Indeed,afterthatmeeting,accordingtothegrievor,nofurtherjobopportunitieswereever offeredtoher.ShewasseekingawrittenapologyfromMr.Lafantasiespecificallyretractinghis 29 wordsandthethreatshereadintothosewords. ItwasduringtheStage2grievancemeetingthatthegrievordiscoveredthatMr.Levinehadprovided someinformationtotheinternalinvestigationunitinvolvingtheWDHHPcomplaintthatthegrievor tookexceptionto.OnJune27,1994,shefiledagrievanceallegingthatMr.Levine"introducedfalse documentationtoaninternalinvestigation.IITheinvestigator'sreportontheWDHPPcomplaint stated:"documentationindicatespriortorequestofattendancereviewrespondenthadspokento complainantinformallyonseveraloccasionsregardingherattendance".Thegrievanceclaimsthat thegrievorwasneveradvisedofanydocumentationregardingattendanceonherpersonnelfile.Nor hadtherebeenanyindicationofprogressivedisciplineforattendance. TheninthgrievancefiledbythegrievorisdatedSeptember14,1994,andallegesthatRosemary Proctor,DeputyMinisterofCommunityandSocialServices,ataStage2grievancemeetingon September8,1994,attemptedtoharassherbydesignatingMr.Lafantasietoactasherdesigneeat thatmeetingeventhoughshewasawarethatthegrievorhadtwooutstandinggrievancesagainstMr. Lafantasieforharassmentandthreatening. Itwasherviewthat,consideringtheirhistory,nothing couldbeaccomplishedbyhisattendanceataStage2grievancemeeting. Thegrievorwasaskedwhethersheusedherdisabilitytoadvanceherpositionatprobationservices. Sherepliedthatshehadnoneedtodoso.Herreviewsinthepasthadbeenexcellent,shehadbeen nominatedforanawardandMr.Levinehadwrittenalettercommendingher as avaluedemployee. Inherviewshedidnotneedtorelyonherdisabilitytoensuresuccessinherjob.Shefiledher 30 harassmentcomplaintagainstMr.Levinebecauseshebelievedthathisactionsinkeepingasecret filecontainingnegativeandderogatorycommentswithouteveradvisingherabouthisopinionswas unfair.Shealsofeltthatthecommentshehadmadewerebasedonherdisabilityandhis unwillingnesstomeetheraccommodationneeds. HerviewwasconfirmedbyamemodatedFebruary22,1994,byMr.LevinetoMerlynGreenand Ms.Blackmoreonthe"discriminationissue".Itstatedasfollows: Attached·youwillfindsomeofmypersonalthoughtsonthecomplaintsasoutlinedby Kathi.IwouldpreferatthistimemyresponsesnotbesharedwithKathiorDavidEthier. Merlyn,IhearyouwithrespecttoManagement'sresponsibilitytoresolvethesetypesof complaints,andIamallforit.IamfinewithyoumeetingwithKathiandwhomever, however,IamfeelingthatIneedtoslowdowntheprocessfornowandthatIneedtospeak toEmployeeEquityadvisorsmyselffordirection/education.Iamnotpreparedtoinvolve myselfinameetingwithKathiandherUnionrep.Iknowthecalibreofthetwo,and Kathi'sowngoalisnotsomuchastodiscreditmebuttogainapromotion.Shefeelsthat ifshecanmakeenoughnoise,andbringherdisabilityintoit,wewillgivehersomething toquietherdown.Ontheonehandshecomplainsaboutlackofaccommodationinthe workplace,yetontheotherhand,Iamtoapprovearequestforhertoworkathometo accommodateherwhenthereisbadweather.Sheisjustnotbeingconsistent. Quitehonestly,Iamfeelingharassedmyself,onthereceivingendofacomplaintthathas absolutelynomerit.Iamalsofeelingharassedduetothreatsofgrievanceandultimatums thatshebettergettheadoptionsjobs,orthecourtdutyposition,orelse.Ineedtoexplore theissuesandfindoutwhatisinvolvedinE.E.Investigation.Ifitwillbeallencompassing withbothsidesbfthe issuelookedinto,Iwouldbecontentwiththeformalprocess.Ifthe investigationwouldonlylookintothematterfromthecomplainersprospective,Iwilllook intoacountercomplaintofharassmentbyKathi. WithallofthenecessarytraininggoingonwithHarassmentDiscrimination,Idon'twant thistoopenseasononManagement.IwillkeepThursdayopen. Thanks(Ineededtoventabit!) Whenthegrievorreadthatmemoshebecameveryupset.ShelostallconfidenceinMr.Levine. ShefeItthatheresentedthefactsheneededtobeaccommodatedandbelievedthathercomplaints ~ ',; • i' 31 werenotlegitimate. Incross-examinationthegrievorconcededthatpriorto1994sheandMr.Levinehadhadagood workingrelationship.Headvocatedaleaveofabsenceforherwhenshewasinanunclassified positionandneededtimeoffformedicalreasonsandassuredherthatherjobwouldbewaitingfor herwhenshereturned.Inadditionheassistedherinpreparingforinterviewsforotherpositions, includingdevelopmentalopportunities.Whenitbecameclearthatthegrievorwasgoingtoneed somecomputerequipmentinordertoassist.hertodoherduties,Mr.Levinetoldherthathewould getherwhateversheneeded.Infact,in1992Mr.Levinenominatedherforanawardandhelpedher towriteheracceptancespeech.Between1990and1994Mr.Levinealsogavethegrievor permissiontoworkathomewhenshewasunabletoorwhenitwastoodifficultforhertocomeinto theoffice.Thegrievorallowedthat,until1994,shethoughtMr.Levinewassupportiveofher effortsanditwasnotuntilshesawhisfilethatsherealized that~whileheappearedtobesupportive toherface,hewasmakingcommentsbehindherbackthatwerenegativeandnon-supportive.She describedherfeelingsas"devastated".Shealsoconcededthattherehadbeennoproblemsbetween themuntiltheattendancereviewmeetingwasscheduledforFebruary8,1994. Itwas veryshortly thereafterthatsheapproachedMr.Levineabouttheillegaladoptionsprojectandtheseriesof complaintsandgrievancesbegan. Shedisagreedwithcounsel'ssuggestionitwasnotuntilFebruaryof1994thatsheraisedcomplaints aboutthelackofaccommodation.Shesaidthatshehadongoingdifficultiesfromthetimethe equipmentwasfirstsetupandhadseveralconversationswithMr.Levineaboutthosedifficulties. 32 Incross-examination,whenaskedwhetherMr.Partridgehadactuallyofferedhertheillegal adoptionsprojectjob,shestatedhesaid"hewouldliketohavemeifitwasokaywithMarcand Merlyn."SheallowedthatMr.Partridgenevertoldherthathewouldnotconsideranyoneelsefor thejob,nordidhepromiseitto herinclearterms.Shewasdisappointedwhensherealizedthatshe wasnotgoingtobegiventhejob.ShewaslaterangrywhensheheardthatMs.Fonghadbeen awardedthejob,primarilybecauseofwhatMr.LevinehadsaidtoMr.Partridge.She acknowledged,however,thatMs.Fongwasthemoreseniorprobationofficerandatleastas qualifiedasshe.Shedeniedthesuggestionthatshewantedthatjobinorder toavoidherattendance review. WithrespecttohercomplaintsaboutthefailureoftheEmployertoprovidethenecessaryequipment, thegrievorwasaskedwhatequipmentshefeltsheneededanddidnotreceive.Shespecifically mentionedlightingandatapebackupsystem,althoughshewasunsureofthenecessityforit.Her answerwasthatshedidnotknowwhatsheneededandthat"they",meaningtheassessors,would knowwhatwasavailableandwhatwasnecessary.Shewasaskedaboutherconcernsregardingthe lackofadequatedeskspace.Itwas~herbeliefthat therecommendationwasfor11feetofdeskspace butthatshereceivedconsiderablyless.Herevidencewasthatshedidnotrecallspecificallybutwas surethatshehadcomplainedaboutthelackofdeskspace. ShewasaskedaboutthethreedaysoftrainingtheMinistryhadpurchasedforher.Sheexplained 33 thatoneofthosedayswasfortheinstallationoftheequipment.Theseconddaythetrainerwas unabletotrainherontheScreenReaderorCCTVandwasonlythereforashorttimetoinstallthe CCTV.Thatwastheextentofhertraining.Itwasheropinionthatshehadnotbeenadequately trainedtousetheCCTVandthatmostofthethingsshelearnedwereself-taught.Sheneverlearned howtousesomeoftheequipment.Shemadegeneralrequestsforadditionaltrainingbutnospecific demandsregardinganyoftheequipment.Atthetimeshereceivedallofthiscomputerequipment shedescribedherselfascomputerilliterateandstatedthatshe"didnotevenknowwheretoputthe discs".Sheagreedthatshehadhadfourdaysoftrainingin1994fromaprogrammerwhowas attemptingtooperatethelargeprintfeature.However,thegrievortestifiedthatshewasin considerablepainatthetimeanddidnotabsorbmuchofthattraining.Sheneverrequestedany specificpieceofequipmentbutstatedthatshefeltitwastheEmployer'sresponsibilitytoprovide ( whatwasnecessaryonceshehadexplainedherReeds.Sheherselfwasnotandcouldnothavebeen awareofalloftheaidsavailabletoassistherinheraccommodation. Shewasaskedaboutthereferenceinherfirstgrievancetothefailuretoprovideadequatespacefor herandherequipment.Sheacknowledgedthatsheneverspecificallyaskedforanyofthethree largerofficesbutstatedthatbeforeshecouldsubmitarequestshewastoldthattheofficeswere distributedontheoasisofseniority.Sheacknowledgedhoweverthatshewasmovedfromasmaller officetoalargerofficeandtheP.O.doingcourtofficerduties,althoughseniortoher,was transferredtoheroffice. Withrespecttoherconcernsabouttheleaveofabsenceforguidedogtraining,sheagreedthatshe ------------------------_._------ 34 hadbeengrantedleavewithpaybothtimesbuttookissuewiththeeffortsoftheEmployertorequire hertousevacationtimeforhalfoftheleave.Sheknewthatshewasentitledtothefullleaveand wasnotpreparedtocompromise.Shepointedto Mr.Levine'smemosonthesubject,whichshe interpretedashiseffortstodenyherleave.Itwasherviewthatshewasgrantedtheleavereluctantly andonlybecausetheEmployerhadnoalternative. ItwassuggestedtoherthatmanyofherproblemshappenedinquicksuccessionfollowingMr. Levine'srequestinJanuaryof1994foranattendancereviewmeeting.Thegrievorconcededthat therewereseveralthingshappeningonoraboutthattime.Theattendancereviewmeetingwas scheduledforFebruary8,1994,butwasadjournedbecauseoftheissueconcerningthetaperecorder. Itwassuggestedtoherthattheverynextday sheapproachMr.Levineabouttheillegaladoptions joband,infact,toldhimthatshehopedtherewouldbenohardfeelingsaboutwhathadhappened thepreviousday.ThenextdaythemeetingwasheldwithMs.Jaffreyand Mr.Levineabout accommodationissues.Itwassuggestedtoherthatwasthefirsttime,thatis,February10,1994, thatMr.LevinehadheardthatthegrievorhadcomplaintsabouttheEmployer'saccommodation attempts.Thegrievordisagreed,sayingthattherehadbeenongoingdifficultiesfromtimetotime sinceithadbeensetupandthatshehadcomplainedaboutthosedifficultiesonanongoingbasis. ItwasalsosuggestedtothegrievorthatbetweenFebruaryandAprilof1994,whenthecourtduty officerpositionbecameanissue,mostoftheallegedharrassmentbyMr.Levinetookplace.She objected,statingthattherelationshipbetweenthemhadbeenstrmnedbeforethatandthattherehad beenagradualdeteriorationintherelationshipprecedingFebruaryof1994.Shedidconcede, 35 however,thattheirrelationshipbecamemorestrainedafterthattime. Thegrievoralsoconcededthatsheconsideredtheattendancereviewmeetingtobedisciplinaryin nature.ShewasalarnledandfeltthatMr.Levinewaslookingforaresponsefromherthatwould correctherattendanceproblemswhen itwas,infact,outofhercontrol.Shefeltintimidatedbythe factofthemeetingandespeciallybythefactthatshewasadvisedtobringaUnionSteward.She deniedthatherattitudetowardMr.Levinebecamedefensiveatthattimebutdescribeditasmore guarded. Withrespecttotheillegaladoptionsposition,thegrievorconcededthatMr.Partridgedidnot promiseherthejobbutmaintainedthathetoldhersolongasMr.LevineandMs.Greenapproved hewould"liketohaveme."ShewasexcitedafterherdiscussionwithMr.Partridgebecauseshe couldconceiveofnoreasonMr.LevineorMs.Greenwouldrefusetoreleaseher. Mr.MarkLevineispresentlytheActingProgramSupervisorwiththeMinistryofCommunityand SocialServices.Hewasthegrievor'ssupervisorfromDecemberof1988toAugustof1994,which includedherearlyyearsofemploymentasanunclassifiedPO.Hewashersupervisorwhenshe ~~'underwenther kidneytransplantin1989.Asanunclassifiedemployee,thepracticewouldhavebeen forhertoresignandreapplyforapositionwhenshewasfit.Mr.Levineadvocatedonherbehalf foraleaveofabsence,whichwasultimatelyapproved.Shewasoffdutyforninemonthsand,when shereturned,resumedherformerposition.Mr.Levinetestifiedthathisroleassupervisorwasto supporther.Shewasanexcellentprobationofficerandhewantedhertohaveonelessworryduring ----~-----------------------------_._. -:;.'. 36 herrecuperation.Hewasamemberoftheselectionpanelthatultimatelygrantedheraclassified positionin1990. When Mr.Stuart-Vanderburgdidtheassessmentofthegrievor'sneeds,Mr.Levineapprovedallof theequipmentonthelistwithoutquestion,whichinvolvedanexpenditureofinexcessof $30,000.00.Infact,Mr.LevinecompletedtheinitialapplicationtotheEmploymentand AccommodationFundorQuickResponseTeam(QRT)asitwascalledtobegintheprocess.He agreedthatittooktoolongfortheequipmenttobefinallysetupforthegrievorandtestifiedthat, althoughhehadnocontroloverthatprocess,hedidsende-mailandmemosinanattempttospeed uptheinstallation.Untilthegrievorreceivedthenewequipment,shehadbeenabletodoherjob, butwithgreatdifficulty.Whentheequipmentarrivedthegrievoridentifiedherfirstpriorityas learningtheDECsystem,whichisthemaincommunicationsystemandincludese-mailandword processing.Shedidreceivesometrainingonthatsystem.Asfaras Mr.Levinewasaware,theonly additionalrequestmadebythegrievorconcemedthelightinginherofficeandheapprovedthe purchaseofaspeciallamp.Hewasawarethatthreedaysoftraininghadbeenpurchasedbythe Employerandthatadditionaldayscouldbeprovidedifnecessary.Thefirstdayoftrainingwas spentprimarilysettinguptheequipment.Thefocuswastogetalloftheequipmentfullyoperational ontheDECsystem.Thegrievorwassatisfiedwiththattrainingfot'thetimebeingandwasnot interestedintrainingonLotusorthevoicesynthesizer.Althoughthegrievortestifiedthatherwork stationwastoosmall,itwasMr.Levine'sevidencethatthedeskswerearrangedaccordingtothe specificationsinthereport.Thegrievorwasmoved'toalargerofficetoaccommodatethe equipment.Asfaras Mr.Levinewasawarethegrievorwascontentwiththatnewofficespace.He , 37 testifiedthathaditbeennecessaryandhadhebeenaskedhecouldhavemovedthegrievortoa largeroffice. Mr.LevinetestifiedthatinitiallythegrievorwascontenttobetrainedprimarilyontheDECsystem whichinvolvede-mailandwordprocessing.Ashereyesightdeterioratedshebecamemore interestedinusingthefullcapacityoftheequipmentandhesupportedherefforts.Hesuggestedto herthattheyblockoffaweekforhertrainingandhehadarrangedforanotherP.O.tooverseeher workloadforthatweek.Hewasunsureofhowmanydaystrainingthegrievoractuallyreceived. Heknewthatthetrainerwasunabletoattendforacoupleofthosedays,butbelievedthatshehad .receivedtraining·fortheotherthree.Aswell,hesaidtherewasongoingtrainingtoexpandthe capacityofthegrievor'svoicefortheScreenReader.Mr.Levinestatedthatheneverrefuseda· requestfortrainingfromthegrievor.Hewasaskedwhetherthegrievorevertoldhimthatshecould notdoherjobbecauseshehadnotbeenproperlytrained.Hetestifiedthatshetoldhimthatshehad difficultieswiththeequipmentandthatshehadtouseherownmagnifier.Shenevertoldhimthat shecouldnotoperatetheequipmentordoherjob.Oncealloftheequipmentwasinstalled,she madenocomplaintsto Mr.Levineabouteithertheequipmentorthetraining. Mr.Levinediscussedtheillegal adoptionsmanager'sposition.Thepracticewasforasupervisorto canvassothersupervisorstoseewho·shouldbeofferedadevelopmentopportunity.Itwashis evidencethatthegrievorinformedhimthatshewasawareofthepositionandthatshehadspoken toMr.Partridge'aboutit.Mr.Levinehetoldherthattherewassomeoneelseinthedepartmentwho hadmoreseniorityandwasmoredeservingoftheposition.Hetoldherthatitwasnotappropriate 38 atthattimetopromoteherbecausetherewereconcernsaboutherattendance.HedeniedtellingMr. Partridgethatthegrievorwasunreliable.WhenMr.Partridgeaskedhimwhetherthegrievorcould bemadeavailablefortheposition,Mr.Levinetoldhimthattherewassomeoneelseinthe departmenthefeltwasmoredeservingandhadmoreseniority.Hesaidnothingnegativeabouther toMr.Partridge. Mr.Levinetoldthegrievorthathehadsuggestedsomeoneelsefortheposition andthat,sinceshewasinvolvedinanattendancereview,itwasmoreappropriatetowaituntilthat reviewwascompletedbeforeshetransferredtoanotherposition. Mr.Levinedeniedanysuggestionthathehaddeliberatelysabotagedthegrievor'seffortstoobtain otherdevelopmentalopportunities. Itwas hisevidencethatintheearly1990's,asummerposition foraclassificationofficerinthecustodyareabecameavailableandthegrievorwasnotsuccessful inherbidfortheposition.Mr.Levinefeltthatsheshouldhavebeenselectedandtoldthegrievor thathewouldwritealetteronherbehalf.Hesubsequentlywroteamemorandumtothesupervisor involved,datedJanuary16,1991,inwhichheexpressedconcernabouttheprocessandthefactthat hewasnotconsultedpriortotheselection.Headmittedtoabiasinthegrievor'sfavourand suggestedthatshehadtheskills,abilityanddesiretofunctionintheposition.Hefurtherstatedthe grievorwouldhavebeenthelogicalchoiceforthepositionandthat,givenherdisability,whichhad ,- notaffectedherjobperformanceoroutput,obtainingthepostionwouldhavemadeherlifemuch easierwithrespecttotravelling.Heconcludedfuycommentingthatthegrievorreceivedthedecision maturelyandprofessionally. Mr.LevinetestifiedthatthecourtdutyofficerpositionwastraditionallyassignedtoP.O'sonan 39 rotatingannualbasis.Theminimumtimeinthejobinthepasthadbeenoneyear.TheP.O.inthe ( jobwasretiringandheadvisedthestaffofthepositionandaskedthosewhowereinterestedto contacthim.Mr.LevineselectedTheresaDompierre.HercontractpositionwasexpiringandMr. Levinefeltthatthecourtdutyofficerpositionwouldbeagooddevelopmentalopportunityforher. Hefeltthatitwouldbeleastdisruptivetothedepartment'scaseloadtoplaceMs.Dompierreinthe job.Thegrievorgenerallysupervised30to50clientsatanyonetimeandherfileswouldhavehad tobetransferredtoanotherP.O.Ms.Dompierrehadnofilesandcouldstepintothejob immediately,withnodisruptiontotheworkload.Hepreparedane-mailforthegrievordatedApril 18,1994,inwhichheexplainedtheoperatienalrequirementsofthejobandhisrationalefor awardingittoMs.Dompierre.Headvisedthegrievorthat,becauseofherinterestintheposition, hewasonlyassigningMs.Dompierretotheroleforsixmonthsandthat,shouldherhealthimprove, shewouldbeconsideredfortheposition.Ultimatelyheneversentthatmemobecauseontheday hewrote it hereceivedtheWDHPPcomplaintinwhichthegrievormade18allegationsof discriminationandharassmentagainsthim.Asaresultofthatcomplainthedecidednottosendthe memotothegrievorbutmaintainedthatitaccuratelyexplainedhisreasonsforhisdecision.Inhis memohesuggestedthattherewouldbe"scrambling"tofindsomeonetocoverthegrievorwhenshe wasabsentfromcourt.Heexplainedthat,eventhoughtherewasarotationalback-uplistofP.O.'s, <~ iftheCourtDutyOfficerwasabsenttheEmpl0yerhadtoensurethatth""ereplacementappearedin courtontime,dressedappropriatelyandpreparedfortheday'scases.Aswell,thatP.O.'sworkload wouldhavetoberescheduled andlor reassigned,dependingonthelengthoftheabsence.Ifthe absencewaslongenoughtonecessitateareassignmentofsomeofthereplacement'sappointments and/ormeetings,asmanyasfiveorsixcaseloadscouldbeinterrupted.Sincethegrievor's 'i'". 40 absenteeismratewashigherthananyotherP.O.inthedepartment,Mr.Levinedecidedthatitwould beinappropriatetoassignhertothecourtdutyofficerpositionatthattime.Hewasaskedwhether thegrievorexplainedtohimthatthestarttimeof10o'clockwouldallowhermoretimefor appointmentswithoutlossofactualworktime.Mr.Levinetestifiedthatthecourtdutyofficer positionrequiredtheattendanceoftheofficeratcourtbefore10a.m.Therewasworktobedone beforecourtstartedandthegrievor'sbeliefthathermorningsuntil10o'clockwerefreewassimply incorrect. HewasaskedabouttheMay1994ReferenceCheckFormwhichthegrievorfoundsooffensive.He maintainedthattheinformationinthechecklistwasaccurate,inparticular,theparagraphconcerning appraisals.Thepersonalproblemsmentionedinthatparagraphdealtwithhermaritalseparationand custodydispute.Heagreedthathehadnotraisedanyofthoseissuesinhisperformanceappraisal ofthegrievorbecausetheywerenotissuesatthetime.Hediddiscussthegrievor'sattendanceand latereportsatstaffmeetingsonanon-goingbasis..Thegrievoralwaysusedherpersonaland medicalproblemsasexcusesforthoseabsencesandlatereportsandMr.Levinetestifiedthathe alwaysexpressedsympathyandconcernforher.Henotedthathementionedmanyofherstrengths andinsomesectionsofthecheckformpraisedherasaP.O.However,evenatthehearing,hewas oftheopinionthathewouldnotrehireher.Heexplainedthatthesechecklistsarepreparedforeach individualcompetitionandareusedsolelyforthatcompetition.Thischecklistwouldnothavebeen usedagainstthegrievorforanyotherjobcompetitions. Mr.LevinewasaskedaboutthegrievancedatedAugust22,1994,inwhichthegrievorallegedthat 41 hehadharassedherearlierthatmonthinconnectionwiththepostingforasupervisoryposition.Mr. Levine'sevidencewasthatthegrievorhadbeenawayatguideschoolforthreeorfourweeksand duringthattimehehadbeenofferedadevelopmentalopportunityattheheadoffice.Theposting wasforhispositionasactingprobationandparolesupervisor.Heknewthatthegrievorhadalways beeninterestedinsupervisorypositionsandthatshewouldbeunawareofthepostingbecauseshe hadbeenaway.HecontactedHumanResourcesandaskedthemtoextendthepostingforonemore daytogiveheranopportunitytoapplyforthejob.Onthemorningofherreturnhecalledher,told heraboutthejobopportunityandwishedhergoodluck.Whenhewasaskedwhyhewouldhave donethatgivenhisnegativecommentsaboutherpreviously,hetestifiedthat,atthatpointintime, .therehadbeengrievancesfiledagainsthimallegingdiscriminationandharassment.Hehadalso beenaccusedofdenyingherdevelopmentopportunitiesintheillegaladoptionsprojectandthecourt dutyofficerposition.Hecontactedheraboutthispostingbecausehedidnotwanttobeaccusedof denyingherasimilaropportunity.Heacknowledgedthathewasontheselectionpanelforthe positionbutstatedthatwhenhecontactedthegrievor,didnotknowthathewouldbeaskedtosit onthepanel. InNovemberof1993Mr.LevinehadpreparedamemototheHumanResourcesDepartmentonthe needtoinitiateanattendancereviewwiththegrievor.Hiscommentsinthememowerefor discussionpurposesandhewasseekingsomeassistanceonhowtoproceed.Uptothispointthe grievorhadnevertoldhimthatherworkwassufferingbecauseofalackofaccommodation.He wasaskedabouthiscommentaboutthegrievor'scustodyproblemsandherdaughter.Heexplained thatonthemorningofthememo,thatisNovember30,1993,thegrievorhadpassedoutinthefoyer ~ .' .' t, 42 downstairs.Hewasveryupsetforher.Anotherstaffwentwithhertothehospitalandtolookafter herguidedog.Hewasconcernedatthetimeaboutherwelfare.Heagreedthatthecommentwas inappropriateandapologizedforincludingit.Hesaidthatatthesupervisionmeetingswiththe grievorshehadexpressedconcernsaboutherdaughter,especiallywhenshewaswithherfather,and toldhimthattheywereinvolvedinacustodydispute.Sheaskedhimtopreparealetterforthecourt sayingthatshewasagoodworkerandthatshehadgoodattendance.Hetoldherthathewouldwrite heraletterofsupportbutwouldnotsaythatshehadgoodattendanceatwork.Shewasveryangry andupsetandMr.Levinefeltshewasdisappointedinhim. ....Severalissuesarosewithrespecttotheleavesofabsenceforguidedogtraining.Mr.Levinetestified thatsheaskedhimwhathethoughtofherchancesofgettingaleaveofabsencetoattendatguide schooltraining.Hetoldherthathedidnotknowbuthewouldsupporther.Heexpressedconcerns thattheMinistrymightonlygrantapartialleaveandthatthegrievormightneedtousesome vacation.Thegrievortoldhimthatshehaddoneherresearchonthisissueandthatshewasentitled totheleaveandthatifshedidnotgetit,shewouldfileagrievance.Thatpromptedthememoof May4,1993,toMs.Blackmore.AtthetimeoftherequesthewasunawareofanyMinistrypolicies regardingthistypeofspecialleaveandofanylegalrequirementsrespectingit.Ultimatelythe decisionwasmadetogranthertheleaveandhesupportedit.Thereasonforthememowasthat, giventhenovelnatureoftherequest,heneededmoreinformationfromHumanResourcesbefore hecoulddealwithit.Heexplainedthatpartoftheprocessofanyrequestforaleaveofabsenceis toconsideralternativesandprecedentialimpact.Afterhehaddonehisresearchhesupportedthe leaveandagreedthatitwasacomponentofaccommodation.Heexplainedthatwhenheusedthe 43 term"excessive"inthememohewasreferringtothefactthatthegrievorwasunsureofthelength ofthetrainingandsuggesteditcouldbethree,fourorfiveweeksinduration.Shealsomadeitclear thatitwas"comingtoher"andthathehadnolegalrighttodenyit.Hercommentspromptedhim tolookatherrequestinitsentiretyandraisedaquestioninhismindastowhetherornot,evenif itwasasmuchasfiveweeksinduration,itwasareasonableuseofthetime.Ultimatelyhedecided itwas.HeapproachedtheDeputyMinister with therequestforleaveandhisrecommendationthat itbegranted. Mr.LevinewasaskedaboutMs.Green.Hisdirectionstoherhadbeentomonitortheattendance forthewholeofficewheneverhewasaway.HeexplainedthatP.D.sareinandoutoftheoffice regularlyandthatpeoplerelyone-mailtoagreatextent. Itwas importanttoknowwhereparole officersweretotheextentpossibleandthatwasthereasonformonitoringtheirattendance.Ms. Green'se-mailsconcerningthegrievorbecameaperformanceissuewithMr.Levine.Hefeltthat shewasspendingtoomuchtimeonthemandaskedhertospeaktohimdirectlyratherthansending hime-mails.Therewasanattendanceboardintheofficeonwhichthestaffweretosigninandout. Ms.Green'srolewastochecktheboardandremindstafftosigninandout.Heneveraskedherfor e-mailsaboutthegrievorspecifically.Healsodidnotneedasmuchinformationaswascontained -:'~'inthose e-mails,inanyevent.Thatwaswhyheruseofe-mail~becamean issue.Allhewantedto knowwaswhetherstaffwassigninginandoutasrequired.Hespoketoheraboutthefactthatthere wastoomuchdetailinthee-mailmessagesbutnotaboutthecontentorthereferencestothegrievor. HetoldMs.Greentostopmonitoringthegrievorthroughe-mailandsimplytomarkinthe attendancebookwhenshewasabsentfromtheoffice.Ms.Greenignoredhisdirectiveand ~ '.':0 ~ 44 continuedtosende-mails.Heagreedthat,althoughthegrievorandMs.Greenhadagood relationshipinthepast,atsomepointMs.Greenbecamejealousthatthegrievorwasreceiving specialattention. Hedeniedcategoricallyeversaying"don'tfallforthatcrap"asallegedbythegrievor.Hecouldnot rememberanyincidentsimilartotheonedescribedbythegrievorbutallowedthatitmighthave happenedbecausehedidoftenstaybehindafterthemeetingstotalktotheP.Os.Thecomplaintwas investigatedduringtheWDHPPinvestigationandonewitnesswasunclearaboutwhatshehadheard .. butbelievedthatitwas"don'tfallforthat".Anotherwitnessheardnocomment.Mr.Levine challengedthosefmdingsandhiredhisownattorney.Heinitiatedagrievanceofhisownunderthe PublicServiceAct,theoutcomeofwhichwas"somethingIcouldlivewith".Wewerenottold theactualdetailsofthesettlement. Mr.LevinewasaskedabouttheattendancereviewmeetingscheduledforFebruary8,1994.Hehad doneattendancereviewswithtwootherstaffmemberstohighlightattendanceproblemsinanon- disciplinarymanner,toexplorepotentialsolutionsandtoidentifyfurtheraccommodationsthat mightbeneeded.Hewasawareofthegrievor'shealthproblemsbeforehescheduledthereviewbut feltthat,givenherabsenteeismrecord,anattendancereviewwasappropriate. AttendingthemeetingwereMr.Levine,Ms.Blackmore,thegrievor,andaUnionrepresentative. Whenthegrievorstatedthatshewantedtotapethe'meeting,theywereunsureoftheproper procedure.Therewassomedebateamongstthemabouttheuseofataperecorderanditwasagreed ."'i 45 toadjournthemeetinguntiltheycouldseekadvice.Mr.Levinetestifiedthatatonepointthegrievor consentedtocontinuethemeetingwithoutataperecorderbutthatheinsistedthatthemeetingbe adjournedtodeterminewhethersheshouldbeallowedtotapethatoranyfuturemeetings. Hedeniedrefusingthegrievortheassistanceofanemploymentequityrepresentative.Hetoldher that,atthefirstmeetingshecouldhavetheassistanceofaUnionrepresentativeandthatif,during themeetingemploymentequityissuesarose,hewouldcallinarepresentativefromthatdepartment. Thegoalofthemeetingwastodealwithattendanceproblems,notemploymentequityissues.In theintervalbetweenthatmeetingandtherescheduledmeeting,harassmentanddiscrimination chargeswerefiledbythegrievoragainstMr.Levine,onedealingwiththeattendancereview specifically. Mr.Levinedecidedthattherewouldbenoadvantageinproceedingatthattime. Thegrievorcomplainedthattheemployeeattendancehistoryreportgiventoherpriortothe meetingwasinsmallprintthatshewasunabletoread.Mr.LevinetestifiedthathehadaskedMs. Greentoprovideherwithacopyandthatitwasgenerallyunderstoodbyallstaffthatanydocuments giventothegrievorweretobeenlarged.Hedidnotfeelthatitwasnecessarytogiveanyspecific instructionstoMs.Greentothateffectand,unforomatelyinthiscase,itwasnotdone.Thegrievor '.- howeverdidnotcomplaintoMr.Levineaboutthesizeoftheprintuntilthegrievancemeeting. HewasaskedabouttheStage2grievancemeetingwithMr.Lafailtasieinwhichthegrievoralleged Mr.Lafantasiethreatenedher.Mr.Levinedisagreedthat Mr.Laflmtasie'sremarkswereintended tobeathreat.TheonlycommentsheheardaboutjobopportunitiesfromMr.Lafantasiewereina 46 supportiveway.Hewasattemptingtoresolvethegrievancesandexplainedtothegrievorthatpart oftheresolutionmightincludejobopportunitiesforthefuture.ThegrievorandtheUniontookthe positionthatbeforetherecouldbeanydiscussionregardingjobopportunitiesandsettlementofthe grievances,therewouldneedtobeanadmissionofguiltonthepartoftheEmployer.Mr. Lafantasietriedtoexplaintoherthatheneededmoreinformationandwasunableatthattimeto makeanyfindingofguilt.Hiscommentaboutfuturejobopportunitieswasmadewithinthatcontext andwasnotmeantasathreat. Mr.LevineexplainedhismemoofJuly5,1994,inwhichheworriedthatthegrievormight"later on"fileaworkerscompensationclaimforherleginjury.Becauseshecouldnotrememberthe detailsoftheaccidentand,morespecifically,whereithappened,Mr.Levinewassimplytryingto protectherandtheMinistry.Atthetimetherehadbeengrievancesfiledagainsthimbythegrievor buthetestifiedthathewouldhavedonethesamethingwithanystaffmemberinthatsituation. Incross-examinationMr.Levinedeniedthathisattitudechangedtowardthegrievorattheendof 1992becauseofherincreasingdemandsforaccommodation.Hedisagreedwiththesuggestionthat heviewedthegrievorasmanipulativeandunreasonable.Heexplainedthatamemowrittenbyhim tothegrievordatedJanuary12,1993,wasanexpressionofhisconcernsregardingtheprocedure fortakingtimeoff.Hewasawarethatshewasrequiredtotaketimeoffformedicalappointments butwasconcernedaboutthefactthatshedidnotintendtoreturntotheofficefromaneyedoctor's appointment.Heraisedissuesconcerningtheappropriatetimeoffforadoctor'sappointmentversus takingasickdayorcompensatingdaywhenanappointmentaslongerthanusual.Hesuggestedthat ~~------------------------ 47 ifadoctor'sappointmentwentbeyondtwohours,forexample,anemployeeshouldtake compensatingtimeofforavacationday.Hepointedoutthatinthememohestatedthatheintended tobringsimilarissuestotheentiregroupandthathismaingoalwastobefair. Heagreedthatwhenthegrievorinitiallyaskedhimfortimeofftoattendguidedogschool,hewas unsureabouttheproperresponse.Afterhehaddiscussedtherequestwithothershewashappyto supporttheleave.Heacknowledgedthatheneverconsideredthemissuesofaccommodation becausethegrievor'srequestwasforspecialand/orcompassionateleave.Sheherselfdidnot characterizeitasaccommodation·andneitherdidhe. Hewasaskedwhetherhewasfrustratedwiththegtievorandherdemandswhenhewrotethememo ofNovember30,1993.Thesubjectheadingofthatmemois"SameProblem,DifferentStaff'.He explainedthathewasreferringtotheattendanceproblem.Twootherstaffmembersinhis departmentwerecausinghimsimilarconcerns;oneregardingattendance,theother,punctuality. Thatwashisexplanationfortheheadingonthememo.Hedeniedbeingfrustratedwiththegrievor andherdemands.Heknewthereasonsforherabsencesfromworkandneverquestionedtheir legitimacy.Whenhewrotethatmemohewasveryupsetandconcernedforthegrievor.Shehad, thatday,fainted,attheofficeandhisconcernswereentirelyforherwellbeing.Hisdecisionto conductanattendancereviewwasbasedsolelyonthoseconcernsanditsmainpurposewastomake herawareofhisconcernsandtoconsideraccommodationissues.Whenhereferredinthememo tocreatinga"crisis",hethoughtperhapsthefactoftheattendancereviewwouldmakethegrievor takearealisticassessmentofherhealthandaccommodationneeds,whichwouldhaveanimpact '" 5'i' ~48 onherattendance. HewasaskedaboutamemotothegrievordatedApril2,1993,aboutherattendance.Inithe remindedthegrievorthathehadaskedherto"dosomethinking"asafollow-uptoaprevious conversation.Healsopointedoutthatthecontentsofthismemoappliedtoallprobationstaff.He quotedthecollectiveagreementregardinghoursofworkandemphasizedthatthoseworkinghours werenottobecompletedonaflexiblebasisbutratherwithintheparameterssetbytheEmployer. Healsomadeareferencetofivecompensationdaysthatrecognizedtheoccasionalneedforwork tobedoneoutsidetheregularscheduledhours.Hethenwentontosaythefollowing: WhileIacceptmyresponsibilitytobesensitiveaboutemployeesspecialneedsand accommodation,Ineedtolookatotherissuesaswell. AstheemployerIhaveanobligationtoruntheoffice.Staffdonothavetheauthorityto absentthemselvesfromtheworkplacewithoutmypriorauthorization.Also,Ineedto knowwherestaffareshouldanemergencyarisein·theoffice. Exceptunderunusualcircumstances,mostmedicalappointmentsarebookedinadvance. ItshouldbeincumbentonStaff,whentheyarescheduledduringaworkday,todiscuss thesewithmefirst,andthisisusuallythecase.Also,todiscusshowandwhentheywillbe makingupthetime.Shouldanemergencyappointmentcomeup,staffshouldbecontacting metoadviseofsuchandrequestpermissiontoleave.IfIamimpossibletoreach(i.e.away atlunch),myexpectationistoleaveamessageforme. Againthisappliestoallstaff,andifthisisexpectedofothers,attendingdentalandmedical appointments,therulesshouldbeappliedconsistently. InrecognitionofyourdisabilityIamwillingtoexploreanumberofoptions: -staggeringyourworkhourssoyoumayattendmedicalfirstorlastthingintheday; -determineifaparticulardoctorisseenorcouldbeseenatasettimeeveryweekand makinganagreementtoabsentyoufromtheworkplaceonthepre-scheduledtimeand havingaset,regularlyscheduleddaywhenyoumakeupthehours; -Iaskyoutoproposealternativesasonlyyouknowwhatwouldbemostsuitable; -RequestsomeonefromEmploymentEquitytomeetwithmeorbothofustoseeifthere areanyotherwayswecanassistyouintheworkplace; 49 Again,IremindyouthatSchedule6againisnotflexhours,however,inreviewingthenew HRGuidelinesandDirectives,Ihavefoundalternativeswhichmaysuiteyourneeds,i.e., establishingaflexschedule. Wetalkedabouttheissueofusingtaxisfromtimetotimeinyourgettingaround.Iam lookingintothisissue,inanefforttoassistyoufurther.Icanseepayingforataxitoassist youwhenreturningfromameeting,butwouldthinkitwouldbeyourresponsibilityafter adoctor'sappointmenttoreturntotheoffice,atyourownexpense,asquicklyaspossible. Inorderforme(management)toassistintheaccommodationofyourself,Ifeelyoumust beupfrontaboutyourneeds.1wouldliketosuggestthatwemeetagaininformally.We shouldbeabletofindaFairwaytomeshmyneedsandaccommodateyourspecialneeds. Mr.Levinestatedthatwhenhewrotethatmemohewasgettingpiecesofinformationatatimefrom thegrievorandwantedamore·completeexplanationofherneeds.Shewasawayforextended periodsoftimeandhewasconcernedthatshewasflexingherhoursinordertomeetherneedsto beabsent.Hedeniedbeingfrustratedatthetime,statinghewaslookingforasolutionthatwould befairtobothofthem. HewasaskedabouthismemoofFebruary4,1994,inwhichhemadereferencetolosinghis composureandtothefactthathewasunawarethateyestrainwasanissueinthegrievor's attendance.Hestatedthatwhenhewrotethatmemohewasdisappointedthatthegrievorfeltshe hadnotbeenaccommodated.Tosomeextenthefeltthatshehadbeenlessthanhonestwithhim. Shehadnevercomplainedtohimthatshehadtotaketimeoffbecauseofeyestrainfromworking atthecomputer.Hesaidthatifanotheremployeehadcometohimwithasimilarcomplaint,he wouldhavetoldthemtotakesometimeoffawayfromthecomputer.Heacknowledgedthatwhen hewrotethatnotehemusthadbeenupsetorangry,notsomuchwiththegrievorbutwiththeevents astheywereunfolding. ;.,.' 50 HewasaskedabouthismemoofFebruary22,1994.Hestatedthathewrotethatmemoafterhehad receivedthedetailsoftheWDHPPcomplaint.Hesawthegrievor'scomplaintasapersonalattack againsthim.Whenhereferredtothe"calibreofthetwo",referringtothegrievorandherUnion representative,hemeantthattheywerestrong-willedanddeterminedpeoplewhoweresetongetting theirway.Atthetimehewrotethatmemohewasupsetbythegrievor'sallegationsandbelieved thatshehadfiledthecomplaintinordertoachieveapromotionsheotherwisewouldnothavebeen ( entitledto.Hewasstillofthatviewatthehearing.Hewasnotsuggestingthatshewasusingher disabilityforthatpurpose,butratherusingthediscriminationandharassmentchargesinsucha manner. Ms.JeanBlackmorereferredtointhememosisnowMs.McDermitt.Soasnottoconfuseanyone, Ihavedecidedtorefertoherbyherformernameinthisaward.Shewasahumanresource consultantfortheMinistryofCommunityandSocialServicesatthetimeofthegrievance.Sheis nowahumanresourceconsultantfortheMinistryofTransportationinSt.Catharines.Itwas her evidencethatitwasnotunusualforsupervisorstokeeppersonalfilesontheiremployeesasanaid insupervisionandperformanceappraisals.Thenotescovermanysubjectsandarenotusuallyseen bytheemployee.Theircontentscannotbeusedfordisciplinarypurposes. ShehaddiscussionswithMr.Levineabouttheguidedogschoolleaveofabsence.Hecontactedher becausehehadneverbeenfacedwitharequestofthatnatureandaskedforherassistance.Shesent himapacketonspecialleavesandcompassionateleavesbutwasunabletoprovidehimwithany precedentsonleavesforthegrievor'spurpose.ShestatedthatMr.Levinewasalwayssupportive 51 oftheleaveandtheonlyissuewasthedurationoftheleaveandtheproceduretouseinapproving it.Mr.Levinewantedtobecarefulnottomakeanarbitrarydecisionandwantedasmuch informationasthegrievorcouldgivehim.Aswell,thedecisiontoapprovealeavesuchasthis wouldbemadeataseniorexecutiveleveland,therefore,asmuchinformationaspossiblewas necessaryinordertopersuadethemtoapprovetheleave.Thediscussioninthememosaboutusing ~ vacationtimeforpartoftheleaveandthepersonalversusprofessionalneedforaguidedogwere simplymeantasdiscussionofalloptions.Therewasneveranysuggestionthatthegrievorwould bedeniedtheleave. ShewasaskedifshewasawarethatthegrievorhadfiledaWDHPPcomplaintagainstMr.Levine atthetimethathewasdecidingwhethertoawardherleave.Shestatedthatitwouldhavecontinued tobehisresponsibilityinthosecircumstances.Hewasstillresponsibleformanagingtheofficeand, atthatpointintime,theallegationshadnotbeenproven. Shewasaskedincross-examinationwhether,inconsideringthegrievor'srequestforaleaveof absencetoattendguidedogtrainingschool,sheconsideredtheissueofaccommodationtothepoint ofunduehardship.Shestatedthatwaswhytheleavewasapproved.Itwaspointedouttoherthat was'thefirsttimeintheproceedingsthattheleavewascharacterizedasaccommodation.Shestated thatsheconsideredaccommodationaspartofherthoughtprocessbutthatanyleavehadtobe characterizedunderthecollectiveagreementandsoitwasneverstatedexpresslyasaccommodation. ShewasalsoinvolvedintheattendancereviewmeetingbetweenMr.Levineandthegrievor.Mr. 52 Levinehadcontactedherbecausehehadconcernsabouttheeffectofherfrequentandlengthy absencesontheoperationsofthedepartmentandservicetotheclients.Thepurposeofthemeeting wastoassistthegrievortoperformworkonaregularbasisandtomeettheoperationalneedsofthe department.Theywerealsohopingtofindabalancebetweentheoperationalneedsandherpersonal needsanddetermineaprognosisforfutureattendance.ShedidnotinviteanyonefromEmployment Equityatthetimebecauseitwastheirviewthatthefirstmeetingwouldbeusefulinestablishingthe attendanceproblemsandsomeoftheissuesmentionedpreviously.Theyintended,atsomepoint, tohavesomeonefromEmploymentEquityattendthemeetings. Whensheattendedtheattendancereviewmeetingshewasunpreparedforthegrievor'srequestthat shebeallowedtotapethemeeting.Shehadneverbeenatameetingwhereataperecorderhadbeen. used.Infact,atapreviousmeetingwiththeUnion,theEmployerrepresentativehadbeentoldnot touseataperecorderbytheUnion.Inanyevent,itwassuggestedthatbothsidescouldtakenotes. ThegrievorexplainedthatthiswashermethodoftakingnotesandagreedtoprovidetheEmployer withatranscriptofthetape.Ms.McDermottsuggestedtheyadjournthemeetingsothatshecould considertherequest.Shewasnotpreparedtodenyit.Shetestifiedthatifthegrievorwasentitled tohavethetaperecorder,thatwasacceptabletoher,butshewantedtomak~someinquiries.Itwas herbeliefthatataperecorderwouldbeinhibitingandwouldconstricttheconversationbetweenthe parties.Shetestifiedthathumannatureissuchthatmostpeoplearelesswillingtobeopenwhen theyknowthattheirconversationisbeingtaped.Shedidnotagreewiththesuggestionthatthe grievorrefusedtocontinuetoparticipateinthemeetingunlessshewasallowedtousethetape recorder.Shemaintainedthatsheadjournedthemeeting,eventhoughthegrievorwaspreparedto .;; i' " " 53 proceedwithoutthetaperecorder. Mr.RickPartridgehasbeenthecoordinatoroftheCrownWardReviewandPrivateInternational AdoptionProgramsince1992.Heexplainedthatthetemporarypositionaroseinhisdepartment becausetheirinvestigationintotheillegal-adoptionandsaleofbabieshadbecomesomuchlarger thananticipatedthatthepersonassignedtodoingitwasunabletohandleitwithoutassistance.The jobinvolvedinterviewingadoptiveparentsandbirthmothers,examiningfiles,reviewingsocial' workerreports,writingbriefingnotesfortheMinisterand,whennecessary,testifyingincourt. Becausethesecondmentwasonlyforthreemonths,itwasnotposted.Mr.PartridgespoketoMs. Renwickandaskedherifshecouldidentifysomecandidateswhowouldbeinterested.Sheasked formoreinformationaboutthepositionandthencontactedthevarioussupervisors.Fourdays passedandMr.Partridgehadheardnothingaboutanyinterestedcandidates.Therewasmounting pressuretohandletheworkloadandhewasbecomingconcernedthatnoonewasgoingtoapplyfor thejob.Thatdayhegotacallfromthegrievorasking him toconsiderher.Heknewherreasonably wellandfeltshehadthebasicskillsforthejob.Becauseofthenatureofthesecondmentheneeded someonequicklyandtoldherthatshewouldhavetoreceivepermissionfromhersupervisortobe releasedasquicklyaspossible.Heconcededthathemighthavegivenhertheimpressionhewould considerherforthejobbecausehedid'tel;lherthatshewasqualified.However,hedenied promisingherthejob.ThenextdayhereceivedaphonecallfromMs.Fong.Hetoldherthesame thinghehadtoldthegrievoraboutneedingsomebodyquicklyandneedingtheconsentofher supervisor.ShesaidshehadalreadyspokentoMr.Levineandhehadapprovedhertransfer.He hadworkedwiththegrievorattheEtobicokeofficewhenshewasavolunteerandanunclassified ~ ," .~ 54 P.O.HehadalsoworkedwithMs.Fongandfeltshehadmoreexperienceanddepththanthe grievor.Ifnooneelsehadappliedforthejobhewouldhaveconsideredthegrievor,however,itwas hisviewthatMs.Fongwasthebestcandidateforthejob.Shehad20yearsexperiencecompared tothegrievor'smuchshorterservice.Hedescribedthegrievorasa"diamondintherough"and statedthatshewouldhaveneededmoresupportinwritingreports.Heneededsomeonewhocould walkrightintothejobandfeltMs.Fongwasthebettercandidate.HecalledMr.Levinetoconfirm Ms.Fong'sassertionthathehadapprovedhertransfer.Mr.LevinewassupportiveofMs.Fongand theydiscussedheroutstandingvacationcreditsandconfirmedthatshecouldbeginthejob immediatelyafterhervacation.Theydiddiscussthemeritsofthecandidates,butnotinany depth. TheybothagreedthatMs.Fonghadmoreexperiencethanthegrievor.Becauseheknewboth candidates,hedidnotfeeltheneedtodiscusstheirrelativeabilitieswith Mr.Levine.Hestated therewasnoquestioninhismindthatMs.Fongwasthebettercandidate,especiallywithrespect toreportwriting.HetestifiedthatMr.Levinemadenonegativecommentsaboutthegrievorand that,ifhehad,hewouldhaverememberedthem.Infact,hesaidhehadneverheardanynegative commentsaboutthegrievor.IfMr.Levinehadsaidanythingnegative,hewouldhaveremembered itasbeinginconsistentwithhisimpressionofthegrievor.Infacthetestifiedthatwhenhewas contactedtotestifyatthehearinghewassurprisedandevensaddenedtoknowthattherewere performanceisimesinvolvedbecauseitwas hisbeliefthattherewerenoproblemsorcomplaintswith thegrievor'sperformance.Heconcededthathisknowledgeofthegrievor'sreportwritingskillswas basedonhisassessmentofherwritingskillsasavolunteer.Heagreedthathehadaskedhertotrain othervolunteerstowritereportsbutstatedthatthestandardexpectedfromavolunteerwaslessthan thatexpectedfromaP.O.Sincethattimehehashadnocontactwiththegrievorandcouldnotsay 55 whetherherwritingskillshadimprovedintheinterval.Hedeniedevertellingthegrievorthatif Ms.RenwickandMr.Levinewerepreparedtoreleasehershecould"comeondown--I'dloveto haveyou."Hesaidthatitwasunlikelyhewouldhavesaidthatwithoutknowingwhethertherewere othercandidates.Hewasaskedaboutthee-mailmemofromMr.LevinetohimdatedFebruary9, 1994,inwhichheadvisedMr.Partridgethathehadatleasttwointerestedstaff,oneofwhom'he waspreparedtorelease.Italso statedthathewouldnotrecommendthegrievoratthattimefora varietyofreasons.HecouldnotrecallthememoinitiallybutdidrememberthatMr.Levinehadtold him thegrievorwasbehindinherwork.ItwaspointedouttohimthathismemotoMs.Renwick· aboutthegrievor'sinterestinthejobwassentat12:22P.M.andMr.Levine'sresponsewassentat 1:44P.M.Itwas suggestedtohimthatitwasunlikelyMs.Fongwouldhavecalledhimbythen giventheshortintervaloftime.Whenit'wassuggestedtohimthatMr.Levineactivelyadvocated Ms.Fongforthejob,Mr.Partridgedisagreed.Inhisview,allMr.Levinewassayingwasthathe hadtwointerestedpeopleinhisdepartment,onehewasnotwillingtorecommendforanunspecified reason.HetestifiedthathespoketoMr.Levineafterhehadmadehisdecisiontoawardthejobto Ms.Fong. HealsotestifiedthathisusualpracticeistokeepaformalpersonnelorHRfilewhichcontains ,- appraisals,meritincreases,lettersofcommendations,lengthofservice";"dassificationandrelated employmentdata.Healsokeepsanother,lessformalfilewhichcontainsnotesofmeetingswith staffandstaffsupervisorydiscussions.Tothebestofhisknowledge,thesupervisorsinToronto wereexpectedtokeepsimilarsupervisoryfiles.Hesaidthattherewasnoobligationonhimtoshow anemployeethatfileunlesssomethingaroseconcerningthecontentsofthatfileatwhichpointhe S6 wouldthenmaketheemployeeawareofthefileandallowforarebuttal. ThefinalwitnessfortheMinistrywasMs.LaurieMcEvoy,whohasbeenanEmployment AccommodationConsultantwiththegovernmentsinceOctoberof1992.Shebeganworkingwith theMinistryofCommunityandSocialServicesin1991asaprojectconsultantdealingwiththe technicalaccommodationofpersonswithdisabilities.Herdutiesincludedplanningandleadinga comprehensiveconsultationprocessanddevelopingapolicyproposalonthedeliveryofworkplace andtechnicalaccommodation.Shealsodevelopedaconsumerdirectedmodelforproviding employmentaccommodationtoworkerswithdisabilities.SinceOctoberof1992,shehasbeena projectleaderwiththeQRTandanEmploymentAccommodationConsultant(SensoryandPhysical Disabilities).Sheprovidesemploymentandaccommodationservicestopersonswithdisabilities andtheir·managersthroughhandsonfunctionalanalysisofthedisabilityandon-sightanalysisof thejobrequirements,tasksandtheenvironmeat.Aswell,herdutiesincluderesearching,testingand evaluatingaccommodationsolutionsanddocumentingthoseresultsinaneducationalreport. Beforethat,from1988to1991sheworkedwiththeCanadianNationalInstituteForTheBlindas NationalManager,TechnicalAidsServices.Sheestablishedconsumerdirectedstandards, developedstafftrainingprogramsandco-orditiatedtheservicesoftwelvetechnicalaids,service centresandstores.Forayearbeforethatsheworkedfor'BetaComSystemsasaManagerinthe OntarioRegion.Herdutiesincludedmanaging,marketing,salesandcustomereducationservices andtechnicaltrainingonadvanced'technologicalproductsforpersonswithdisabilities.Herwork withissuesofdisabilitybeganin1982andincludesmembershipinseveralorganizationsdedicated 57 tothatend. Ms.McEvoyhadreceivedamemodatedOctober14~1992~fromMr.BrysonBoright~.Information SystemsBranch~thatstatedasfollows: IjustspokewithKathi.Apparently,KevinHuberofMicroComputerScienceCentrehas beenoutforonedayoftraining.Unfortunatelyitseemsmostofthedaywasfocusedonuse ofthevoicesynthesizer.KathiwouldhavepreferredtousethePS2andotherdevices, ratherthanthevoicesynthesizeratthistime. ApparentlyKevinsaidhisfirmcouldreturnfortheremainingtrainingatKathi's convenience.Nodatehasbeenset. Betacomitseemsonlystayedforapproximately15minutesfortheVistacomponent. MicroComputersScienceCentrewasauthorizedforthreedaysti'aining~,Betacomwas approvedforone-halfday. BasictrainingonuseoftheIBMPS2orotherequipmentdoesnotseemtohaveoccurred. ConsequentlyKathiisnotusingherPS2etc.Itsoundsasifsheispresentlyrelyingona DECterminaluntiltrainingisresolved.Shedoesagreethatthetrainingneedstobe staggeredoveraperiodoftimeratherthanconcentrated. Lori:Couldyou.call Kathi~touchbase withher,andthendiscussherneedswithMicro ComputerScienceCentreandBetacom. ThefirstwrittencommunicationbetweenthegrievorandMs.McEvoywasane-maildatedOctober 14~1992,inwhichMs.McEvoyintroducedherselftothegrievor~apologizedforintroducingone morepersonintohersupportteamandpromisedtodoherbesttodealwithalloftheoutstanding issues.Ms.McEvoyalsostatedthat~whileshemewthatthegrievorhadreceivedtherecommended equipment~shecouldnotdeterminewhat,ifany~softwaretrainingthegrievorhadreceived.She askedthegrievortowritebackabouttheissuesthatwereoutstandingortocallherofficebut suggestedthatshewouldbeinandoutoftheofficefrequentlyandthatthegrievorshouldleavea message. . 58 OnMarch8,1993,Ms.WattswrotetoMr.BorightabouttheScreenReadertrai~ing.Inthememo shestated: IcontactedMr.ChaifromMicroComputerSciencestodaytoaskabouttrainingonthe ScreenReaderwithDEC.RecenteyesurgeryhasleftmewithreducedvisionandIamnow findingitdifficulttoreadmycomputerscreen. Mr.ChaiadvisesmethatbeforeScreenReadertrainingwithDECcanbearranged,aprofile oftheDECprogrammustbewrittenforacceptancebytheScreenReader. IamalsotoldthatbothyouandLori(?)?areawareofthisneedandhavebeenattempting tocompletethistask. Canyougivemeanyideaastowhenthismightbecompleted?Ifinditincreasingly difficulttocompletemyworkonthecomputerbecauseofmysightandwouldappreciate anyupdateyoucanprovideregardingthissituation. Thankyouforyourconsideration. ThenextwrittencommuniquebetweenthegrievorandMs.McEvoyisfoundonMarch10,1993, somefivemonthslater.Inamemoat1:52p.m.onMarch10,1993Ms.McEvoywrotetoMs.Watts .introducingherselfastheemploymentandaccommodationconsultantanddiscussingthepotential fordevelopingaScreenReaderprofile.ShestatedthattheyrealizedthattheDECscreenswereto bechanged,whichwouldaffectanyprofilethatwassubsequentlywritten.Shesuggestedthatthey scheduleameetingwithMicrocomputerScienceCentre,anothervendorandMinistrysystemsstaff. Thememocontinuedasfollows: ( ...Iwillkeepyouinformedasweproceedandhopethatyoucanprovideuswithinputtothe_~' projectalongtheway.CanyouletmeknowifyouareusingtheWP-PlusortheVAX WordPerfectEditor?AndwhichfunctionsdoyouuseinDECmostoften(i.e.E-mail,word processing,etc.)? Regardingyourimmediateneeds,areyouabletofunctionwiththeVistaSystemandyour CCTVatall?Iwouldbeinterestedinknowingifyouarehavinganyproblemswiththe qualityofimageofyourCCTV?Ifyoufeelyourvisionandthelackofthescreenreader profileaffectingyourabilitytoperform,wecoulddiscusssomeinterimoptionsuntila ScreenReaderprofileisavailable. i· 59 InthememoMs.McEvoyaskedwhetherchangesinthegrievor'svisionhadaffectedheruseofthe largeprintprogram,VISTA.Shealsomentionedthat,ifthegrievorbelievedshecouldbenefitfrom theCCTV,Ms.McEvoywouldscheduletimetoexplaintheoperationstoher.Ms.McEvoyalso commentedon.theScreenReaderbutsuggestedithadlimiteduses.Shementionedthat ScreenReadercouldbecustomizedbutthat,throughherresearchshehaddeterminedthattherehad beennoprofiledevelopedforthetypeofapplicationrequiredbythegrievorandtherefore questionedanyreasontoinvestigatefurther.Shealsonotedthatthegrievor'strainingfromMicro Computerhadbeenpaidforandthatthegrievorshouldproceedwiththetworemainingdaysof trainingsothatshecouldlearnthefunctionsofScreenReaderanduseitforbasicreadingandwriting tasks.ShealsosuggestedthatshewouldexploreotherwaystoprovidetrainingontheDECe-mail systemandScreenReader. ThatmemowasinresponsetoamemoearlierthatafternoonfromthegrievortoMs.McEvoyin whichshestatedthefollowing: "Idon'treallyunderstandthelogisticsofitall,andI'mprettyclosetocomputerilliterate. ImakeverylittleuseoftheCCTV,notbecauseitisoflittleuse,butbecauseIhaven'tfound thetimetoexperimentwithitandreallygettoknowallitsapplications.Imakeuseofmy E-mailonacontinual,dailybasis.Ialsousethewordanddocumentprocessingseveral timesdaily,sinceIkeepmycasenotesandformsrelatedtoclientsinfileswithinthis option. Iunderstandthatthereareapprox.fourotherswaitingforaDECprofileforthe ScreenReader.Pleaseincludemeinthelistofthoseanxiouslyawaitingthecompletionof this. WhenIvisitedJohnStuart-VanderburgonYongeS1.toviewequipmentavailable,Johnwas (andstillis)ontheDECsystemandishookeduptoaScreenReader.Irememberthis becausehedemonstratedittome.Isthisnotuseablewithmysystemforsomereason? LikeIsay,Iknowverylittleaboutcomputers,andmaybethereisareasonwhyJohn's programcannotbeappliedtomine. 60 PleaseletmeknowifthereisanythingIcandotoassistintheprogressofthismuch-- neededtask,pleaseletmeknow. BymemodatedMarch15,1993,Ms.McEvoywrotetothegrievorabouttheScreenReadertraining. InitshesaidthatshehadarrangedforKevinHubertocomeinfororientationwithasystemsofficer andhopedthathecoulddosometrainingforthegrievorbeforetheendoftheweek.She acknowledgedthatonedaywouldnotgivehertremendousinformationbutthatitwouldbeofsome help.Shealsosuggestedthatshecouldtry toalleviatetheglareproblemswithlightsandfiltersand suggestedtheyscheduleameetingsometimethenextweekortheweekafterthat. OnMay19,1993thegrievorwrotetoMs.McEvoyregardingthegelpaper.Thatmemostatedas follows: Aspromised,hereistheinfoonthegelpaper/film. Contact:P.S.ProductionServices 65HewardBuildingB CINEVillage Toronto,OntarioM4M 2T5 Tel.(416)466-0037Fax(416)466-9612 Askforsomeoneinpurchasingriporlightingequipment(sic) Mybrothertellsmethattheywillhavewhatyouneed.Healsosaysthatyoumightwant tocheckoutsomethingcalledneutraldensitygel.Igettheimpression,though,thatneutral densitystuffiswithoutcolour. Apparentlygelcanbepurchasedinrollsorsheets. Hopethishelpsyouout. OnFebruary2,1994thegrievorwrotetoMs.McEvoyregardingtheScreenReaderprofile.That memostatedasfollows: Hi!Haven'ttalkedtoyouinawhile. 61 IjustreceivedanewsletterfromMicrocomputerScienceCentreInc.,whichindicatesthat theyhavenowdevelopedaprofileforScreenReaderforWordPerfectDos6.0. Isn'tthistheprofilewehavebeenwaitingformyequipment?Andifso,howdoIgetit. Iwouldalsoliketoknowthestatusofmyrequestre -lighting -somekindofglare-cuttingscreenformycomputer(welookedatdifferentcoloursofgel paper) -otheraccommodationissues Myeyesightcontinuestodeteriorateandmyaccommodationproblems,particularlymy lightingissuearebecomingmorecrucial. Ms.McEvoyrespondedthatsamedayapologizingbyfornotreplyingearliertoherquestions.She statedthatshewastheonlypersonavailabletodoaccommodationsforemployeeswithdisabilities andwastryingtodealwithurgentcases;Le.contractsorpeoplewithnoaccommodationatall.It washerhopetoreturntopeoplewhohadtheirprimaryaccommodationsmetbutnottheirsecondary ones.Eventhough·shenowhadtheassistanceofanotherhalftimedisabilityspecialistandsystems officer,sheacknowledgedthatshewasstill veryfarbehindinherworkload.Shethenadvisedthe grievoroftworesearchprojectsthatshewassupervising,oneonthedevelopmentofthe ScreenReaderprofileandoneontheVAXeditor.Shesuggestedthattheirprogrammervisitthe grievortorecordhowshewasfunctioningandtogetherinputindevelopingtheprofile.Shealso toldthegrievorthatshehadboughtsomegelpaperandhaddeterminedhowtomountitonthe computerscreenbutwouldhavetocomeandcheckexactmeasurementsandcoloursbeforeshe couldactuallymakethescreens.Shesuggestedthatthegrievorpurchaseadditionallampsif necessary.Againsheapologizedforleavingthefollowuptothegrievorandexpressedahopethat theserviceswouldimproveinthefollowingyear. 62 BymemodatedNovember3,1994,Ms.McEvoywrotetoMr.PaulValanaserregardingthegrievor. Initshestatedasfollows: ThanksPaul:Yes,weshouldalwaysaddressboththemanagerandtheemployeeonany requestforastaffperson'stimefortheaccommodation.Youmayneedtoprovidesome extrabackgroundasthisisanewmanager. (IwonderwhattasksKathiisusingScreenReaderfor).YouandGlenmaywanttotryto replicatetheproblemonyourmachineoraskmanagerandemployeetohavethetimeto replicateproblemonhermachinebeforeweaskforthetrainingtimebutbothneedtobe relativelysoon. ShemetwiththegrievorfourtitriesinherofficeinMay,1993,February,1994,andinJune of1994. ShetestifiedthatalltheequipmentrecommendedbyMr.Stuart-Vanderburghadbeenpurchasedfor thegrievorandinherofficewhenshevisitedherinMarchof1993.Sheagreedthatoneofthe grievor'sconcernswasthelightinginherofficeandthattheissueforhertoaddresswastheremoval oftheglareonthecomputerscreens.TheStuart-Vanderburgreportrecommendedremovingthe lightsinthegrievor'soffice.Ms.McEvoysimplyturnedthemoff.Mr.Stuart-Vanderburg recommended"pink"lightsorsofterlightforthegrievor'soffice.Ms.McEvoydidnotagreethat thelightswouldhavetobe"pink"becausethatwouldnothavereducedtheglarebutsimplygiven itadifferenttint. Sheagreedthatthegrievordidnothaveclearaccesstoherwindowblindsbutstatedthather suggestiontothegrievorwasthattheybeclosedatalltimesinanyeventbecausetheyallowedtoo muchlightintotheoffice.Shedoesnotrememberthegrievorraisingthatissuewithheragain. Theydiddiscusstheuseofalamponseveraloccasions.ThefirsttimeMs.McEvoysuggestedthey couldlookatdifferentlightsandthattheybringsomeintotest.Shealsosuggestedthatthegrievor shouldhaveonethatcouldbeloweredbeloweyelevel.Ms.McEvoytoldhertopickoutalightand 63 thattheofficewouldorderit.Shestatedthatthegrievormisunderstoodherandbroughtinherown light.ItwasneverMs.McEvoy'ssuggestionthatthegrievorpurchasethelightherself.Onanother occasionMs.McEvoybroughtlightbulbstothegrievorandletherdecidewhichonesshewould use. Shewasaskedaboutthegrievor'scomplaintsregardingthegelscreens.Ms.McEvoystatedthat whenshefirstvisitedthegrievorshebroughtsometheatregelstouseasacontrastonthecomputer screen.Theytriedthemoverthemonitorandtheydidsoftenedtheimage.Ms.McEvoywantedto testthegelstoseeifthecontrastwouldhelp.Theyselectedablackbackgroundwithawhite foregroundandattemptedtodesignaframeforthegelpaperthatwouldfitonthescreen.Ultimately thegrievordidnotreceiveanygelscreensbecauseMs.McEvoywasnotconvincedthattheywould havehelpedwiththeproblemofglare. Withrespecttotraining,Ms.McEvoytestifiedthattheMinistrypurchased3daysoftrainingfrom theequipmentsupplierandonefromanothersoftwarecompany.Shenoticedthatthegrievorhad onedayoftrainingonAugust24,1994,ontheCCTV.Shestatedthatthedayswereultimately usedattheendofMarchbutdidnotknowthereasonforthedelay.Shesaidthattherewasalsoa halfdayoftrainingonVISTA,alargeprintprogramthathavewouldallowedthe grievortoreadthe screenmoreeasily.Ms.McEvoysaidshevisitedthegrievorononeoccasionandwatchedherusing itandthateverythingseemedtobesatisfactory.Onhersecondvisit,inFebruaryof1994,shefound thatthegrievorwashavingtroubleoperatingtheLYNXsystemgndVISTA.Sheexplainedthat LYNXwasanattachmentthatallowedthegrievortoprojectanimageontothescreen.Itallowed .:;i'..... 64 forasplitscreenandaccommodatedanenlargedimage.OnthefirstandsecondvisitMs.McEvoy feltthatthegrievorwasabletouseLYNXwithoutanyproblems.Therewasnomanualinheroffice sotheyreviewedthecommandsandMs.McEvoyleftherwithalistofinstructions.Shediscovered duringalatervisitthattherewereproblemsinoperatingthesystemthathadnotpreviouslybeen obvious.ItwasMs.McEvoy'sevidencethatthegrievor'spersonalcomputerwascompletely compatiblewiththeDECsystem.WhenshevisitedthegrievorinMayof1993shenoticedthatthe grievorwasusingtheCCTVbutthatitwasnotattachedtotheautomaticviewingtable.Theviewing tablewaselectronicallyattachedtotheCCTVandacameraeyewouldenlargetheimagetothe screensoastoprojectalargerimageortextonthescreen.Thedocumentisplacedonthetableand itmovesautomaticallytoadjusttothescreen.However,therewereproblemswiththe.table breakingfrequently.Sheleftittothegrievortodecidewhethershewanteditoperational.Ms. McEvoycouldnotexplainwhythetwohadnotbeenconnectedoriginally. Shewasaskedforherassessmentofwhatequipmentthegrievorneededtoperformherduties.She statedthatshewaslookingforbarriersthatwouldpreventapersonfromparticipatingfullyinthe workplace.Asfarasshewasconcerned,thegrievorhadalloftheequipmentnecessarytoeliminate thosebarriers.Infact;inMs.McEvoy'sview,the-S'creenReaderwasnotonlyunnecessary,it complicatedtheprocessforthegrievor.Itwasdifficulttolearnandrequiredextensivepreparation. Whenaskedwhatshewouldhavedonedifferently,shestatedthatherfocuswouldhavebeenon eliminatingtheautomaticviewingtableandtheScreenReader.Shewouldhavespentmoretime tryingtoeliminatetheglareandwouldhavesoughtmoreinformationfromthegrievorabouther '---~~~~~~==~~~~o~~~.•----~-----~---.-~-----._ ~ '4''f: ;0 65 prognosis.Shealsowouldhaveintroducedtheequipmentmoreslowlyandallowedmoretimefor training. UNIONARGUMENT Mr.Roland,counselforthegrievor,tookthepositionthatthecentralfocusofthiscaseisthe allegationofthegrievorthatshewasdiscriminatedagainstbecauseshesuffersfromahandicapas definedundertheHuman·RightsCode.ThatdiscriminationhaditsfocusintheactionsofMr. Levineandtookmanydifferentformsinacceleratingdimensionsbetween1992and1994. TheprimaryissueisthecomplaintthattheEmployerfailedtoaccommodatethegrievor'shandicap tothepointofunduehardshipinatimelyandcompletemanner.Thisfailure,althoughless perniciousinmotivation,indicatesalackofeffortontheEmployer'sparttofindadequatepeople toprovidetheaccommodationnecessary.Ms.McEvoywasover-workedandunabletoprovidethe neededservices.Fromherevidenceitisclearthatshewentfromcrisistocrisisandthegrievor's requestsforhelpbecamelostasaresult.AdditionallyMs.McEvoysimplydidnothavethefacilities torespondtothegrievor'sneeds.Therewasaconfusionastowhowastodeliverwhattowhom causingadisjointedandincompleteattemptataccommodation. Mr.Rolandtookthepositionthatthiscaseisaparadox;itissimpleandyetcomplicated.The simplicityisthat,duetothefactthattheEmployerfailedtoprovideacoherent,effectiveand expeditiousaccommodation,tensionsarosebetweenherandhersupervisor.Thegrievorwas unawareofthetensionsuntilshesawhisprivatefile,whenitbecame cleartoherthatthetensions ". 66 arosem1992and1993butbecamemoreseriousin1994.Thattensiontooktheformof discriminationateveryturnandwasrootedinthefactthatsheconsistentlyinsistedonherrights. The comp~exityofthe caseisseenintheinteractionoftheeventsastheyunfolded.Thegrievor suffersfromadeterioratingcondition.Herneedtobeoffworkisentirelylegitimateandthe Employerhasraisednoquestionaboutthatlegitimacyintheseproceedings.Additionallythe grievor'saccommodationrequirementsarosefromvariousmedicalproblems.Shesufferedfrom kidneyfailureandultimatelyhadtoundergoatransplant.Atthetimeofthehearingsheis experiencingdifficultywithrejectionofthattransplant.Asasecondaryproblemhereyesight deterioratedtothepointwhereshewaslegallysightimpaired.Sherequiredmoresurgeryasaresult. Thegrievorneededtheprotectionofaguide dogandrequiredtimeofffortraining.Thefirstguide doghadtobereturnedbutnotbeforehecausedseriousinjurytothegrievor.Becauseofthe problemswiththegrievor'scirculatorysystem,sheultimatelyhadtoundergoabelowknee amputation.Thenegativeaccumulationofallherproblemsnecessitatedfrequentandlengthy absencesfromworkthatobviouslyhadaneffecton Mr.Levine. Asanadditionalelementthegrievorrequiredaccommodationtocontinuetoperformherdutiesas aprobationofficer.Shewasanintelligent,hardworking,ambitiouspersonwhowantedtoincrease herskillsandimproveherstationattheMinistry.Shewantedtoapplyforpositionsthatwouldhave allowedhertobetransferredsomewheretofurtherthoseambitions.Herdisabilityweighedagainst herinthisregard,atleastinMr.Levine'seyes.Allofthe'attemptsthegrievormadetoimproveher stationwereultimatelyfrustratedbyMr.Levine.Hadthegrievor'saccommodationrequestsbeen 67 dealtwithinatimelyandcompetentmanner,manyoftheproblemsthatflowedasaresultmight havebeenavoided.Becausetheywerenot,theconfluenceofalloftheseproblemsresultedin outrightdiscrimination,which,inMr.Roland'ssubmission,takesusbacktothesimpleaspectsof thecase. Mr.Rolandsubmittedthatthedocumentsdiscoveredbythegrievorlaterintherelationshipare captured inthe grievancesdatedJune27,1994andSeptember14,1994.Thosegrievancesdealwith whatthegrievorconsideredtobefalsedocumentationregardingpreviousdiscussions Mr.Levine had withheroverherattendanceproblemsandtheexistenceofthis"secretfile"separateandapart fromanyofficialpersonnelfile.TheMinistrytakesthepositionthat_theseparatefileissimplyan informalnotationorthe"jottings"ofasupervisor.Acloserreview,however,showsthatitisnot aninnocentfile.Itcontainsperniciousandinsultingmaterial;forexample,thereferenceto"doggy school".Itisafileinwhichnastythingsweresaid.Anasty,discriminatoryfileinwhichitappears severalpeoplecommittedinwritingtheirimpressionsofthegrievor.ItwasMr.Roland'sposition thatthedocumentsandexhibitstellalongandsadstory, Itbeganwiththepositionintheillegaladoptionsproject.Mr.Partridgewasups~twhen hewas ,- confrontedwithane-mailfromMr.Levine'ssecretfilebecauseitchallengedhisstoryand supportedthegrievor'sview.Whatreallyhappenedisthatthegrievorfoundoutaboutthejoband spoketoMr.Partridge.Heknewherpersonally,knewthatshewasanexcellentemployeewithgood writingskillsandtoldherthathewouldlovetohaveheronthejob.Hetoldhertogetapproval fromhersupervisor.However,togetthatapproval,shehadtospeaktoMr.Levinewho,assoon 68 asheheardthatthegrievorwasinterestedintheposition,wroteamemotointerposesomeoneelse intotheposition.Itwasclearlyanattempttosabotagethegrievor'sbidtogetthejob.Asaresult, Mr.Partridgesentamemotothegrievorinwhichhestated"Iwasmadeawareofthefactthat anotherindividualhadexpressedaninterestinthisposition".Thequestion,ofcourse,arisesasto howwasshemadeawareofthatfact.ShehadtohavebeencontactedbyMr.Levine.Hedidnot wantthegrievorto'getthatjobopportunityandcovereduphisattemptstosabotageherwitha memo. Mr.Rolandsuggestedthatthetimingoftheire-mailsconfirmsthegrievor.sstory.Mr. PartridgewrotetoMr.Levineat12:22P.M.onFebruary9,1994,aboutthegrievor'sinterestinthe illegaladoptionsproject.Approximately22minuteslaterMr.LevineadvisedMr.Partridgebye- mailthattherewereatleasttwootherpeopleinterestedinthejobandthathewouldnotrecommend thegrievor;Thereasonthat Mr.Levinewasnotpreparedtorecommendthegrievorisfoundinhis memoofJanuary7,1994,whichsetsoutMr.Levine'sdesireforanattendancereviewmeetingand containsfurthercommentswithrespecttothegrievor'ssicktimeand"sicklyappearance". ItisclearfromtheEmploymentSpecialist'sCompetitionCheckFormofMay16,1994,thatMr. Levine'sattitudetowardsthegrievorhadbecomediscriminatory.Thereareclearstatementsofhis attitudewithinthatcheckform.Hemadereferencetoherhandicapandattributedhernegative attitudeandinabilitytoacceptconstructivecriticismtoherphysicalcondition. ThememoofNovember30,1993,isfurtherproofofhisattitudetowardsthegrievor.Heblamed thegrievorforherproblemsandsuggestedthat,becauseofherdisability,shewasanunfitparent. DuringthistimethegrievorwasstilloftheviewthatMr.Levinewassupportiveofhereffortsand -~---------- 69 wastotallyunawareofhisattitudetowardsher. -HismemoofMay4,1993,regardingtheguidedogsisfurtherproofofhisdiscriminatoryattitude towardsthegrievor.Heconsideredtheleaveexcessiveandcommentedontheelementof"personal use"thatthegrievorwouldderivefromtheuseoftheguidedog.Healsocommentedonthefactthat theguidedogwouldnothelpthegrievorwriteherreportsordoherjobanybetter.Heclearly resentedthefactthatshewasgoingtorequiremoretimeoff.Hisresentfulattitudetowardsher absencesfromworkisclearlyexpressedinthismemo.Hewas,atthispointintime,dealingwith aseverallyhandicappedemployeeandhestilldidnotunderstandthedutyofaccommodation.He commentedinalatermemothatthegrievor"hassympathyonherside"butfailedtoacknowledge_ thatshealsohadthelawonherside.Whileconcedingthathemighthavetoaccedetothegrievor's wishes,itwashisviewthattheywere"stuck"doingwhatsheaskedbecauseofherthreats.Mr. RolandsuggestedthatmemobecomparedwithMr.Levine'smemotothegrievorofMay21,1993, inwhichheexpresslystatedhewastotallysupportiveofherrequest.However,unbeknownsttothe grievor,Ms.Renwickexpressedconcernsaboutthepossibleeffectsofhavingaguidedoginthe workplaceandreferredtoitasthe"Kathiaftermath". Followingthatwerea'seriesofmemosbyMs.Greenindicatinghernegativeattitudetowardsthe grievor.Thememoscontinuedoverasixmonthperiodoftime,containedderogatorycomments aboutthegrievorandculminatedinacommentabouttensionintheworkplacethatMs.Green attributed'directlytothegrievor.ThereisnoevidencethatMr.Levinetookanystepstodealwith Ms.Green'sattitudeortoputastoptohere-mailcomments.Heeitheragreedwithherattitudeor 70 sharedthesameideas.Thereisnoevidencetosuggestthecontrary.ItisclearthatMs.Greendid notfeelthathercommentsaboutthegrievorwouldbeunwelcomedbyMr.Levine,otherwiseshe wouldneverhavecontinuedtosendthesetypesofmemosoversuchalongperiodoftime. Meanwhile Mr.Levine'sattitudecontinuedtoexhibititselfinadditionalmemos.Hedescribedthe grievorasfeeling"powerfulanddemanding"andsuggestedthatshewas"gearingupforafight". ThreemonthslaterhesuggestedthathewasconcernedthatthegrievorwouldallegeaWeBclaim overtheinjurytoherleg. It isclearthatonlybecausethegrievorobtainedaccesstoMr.Levine's filewassheawareofhisattitudetowardsher.Histruestateofmindisevidencedthroughoutthese memos.Hewasresentfulandvindictive.Inhisview,despitethegrievor'sallegationsof harassment,itwashewhowasbeinghara!)sed. Fromthetimethegrievorwasfirsthireduntilthebeginningof1993,thegrievorandMr.Levine appearedtoworkwelltogether.ItisinJanuaryof1993thatwhateverstressortensionhadexisted betweenthembecameexacerbated. Itworsenedandworsenedoverthenexttwoyears,asthe grievor'sphysicalconditionworsened. Itisequallyclearfromtheevidencethatthegrievorwasnotaccommodatedtothepointofundue hardship.WhiletheEmployerdidpurchaseextensiveequipmentforher,thefactisthattheydidnot doenoughtoprovideherwithsufficienttrainingontheequipmenttomakeituseful.Aphotograph providedtotheBoardshowsclearlythattheblindsintheroomwereclosed.Thegrievorneededto closethematalltimesand,infact,hadtoputupblackbristolboardinordertoeliminatetheglare -.---~--------- 71 ontheTVscreen.Shenevergottheproperlightinginherroomandnoexplanationwas.evergiven forthatfailure. Ms.McEvoyconcededthatsheisnotanexpertonaccommodationandwasfrankinheradmission that,atthetime,shewasstretchedtothelimit.TheQRTwasapilotprojectthatwasunderstaffed anddealtwiththingsonacrisisbasis.Therewerelongperiodsbetweenvisitstothegrievorand obviousdifficultieswiththedivisionofresponsibilitybetweenthesupervisorandtheQRT.Allof thatinterferedgreatlywiththegrievor'seffectiveuseoftheequipment.ThereportofMr.Stuart- ,. Vanderburgaboutthegrievor'saccommodationneedsappearsonitsfacetobeanassessmentbased onanunderstandingofthegrievor'shandicap.Heseemedtohaveappreciatedthegrievor's deterioratingeyeconditionandrecommendedthatequipmentbeboughttoaccommodatethat condition.ItisequallyclearthatMr.Stuart-VanderburgandMs.McEvoyhaddifferent understandingsaboutthegrievor'srequirements.SomeoftheitemssuggestedbyMr.Stuart- Vanderburgwerenotnecessary,inMs.McEvoy'sopinion.Asaresult,asituationwascreated wherebythegrievorneededtoinsistmoreandmoreonbetteraccommodationforherhandicap, whichthengeneratedmoreresel1tmentbetweenherandhersupervisor,Mr.Levine. Ms.McEvoy'smemoofFebruary1994indicatesthafsheherselfrecognizedthatshehadbeenunable toprovidethenecessaryassistancetothegrievorandexpressedsomehopethatinthefutureshe wouldbeabletoprovidemore.Areviewofallofthememosconcerningthegrievor'strainingon theequipmentisclearproofthattheEmployernevermetherneeds.Whiletheypurchasedthe equipmentpromptlytheydidnottakethenecessarystepstoensurethatthegrievorcouldmakeuse 72 ofthatequipment.Thatisanotherfailuretoaccommodate. WithrespecttotheCourtDutyOfficerposition,Mr.NelsontookthepositionthattheEmployer's reasonssimplydonotwithstandscrutiny,especiallyiftheyarereadinthecontextofaccommodation tothepointofunduehardship.Mr.Levinethoughtthatitwouldbeleastdisruptivetogivethe positiontosomeoneelseandsuggestedthatthegrievorcouldhavethepositioninthefutureifher healthshouldimprove.Thatissimplyinconsistentwiththedutytoaccommodate.Tosuggestthat itwouldbelessdisruptivetoawardthejobtoanotherPOissimplynottrue.Itwasmoredisruptive forthegrievortotakefrequentabsencesfromherduties,therebyrequiringtheEmployerto .rescheduleappointmentsandreassigncontinuingfilestoanotherparoleofficer.TheCourtDuty Officerpositionhadabuilt-inrotationalsystemthatallowedforemergencyabsences.Itwouldhave beeneasierforsomeonetofillinforthegrievorwhenshewasabsentfromworkatthecourthouse thanitwasforhim toredistributeherresponsibilitiesforherongoingfiles.Whatisclearisthatat thetimeofthismemoMr.Levinehaddevelopedanegativeattitudetowardsthegrievor.Nomatter whatshehadrequestedandforwhateverreasons,Mr.Levinewassimplynotpreparedtodo anythingforher. TheUnionaskedlor adeclarationthatthegrievorhadbeendiscriminatedagainstandanorderthat theEmployerceaseanddesistthatdiscriminationimmediately.Italsoaskedforadeclarationthat theEmployerhadfailedtoaccommodatethegrievor,especiallyduring1993and1994.TheUnion wasalsoseekingadeclarationthattheEmployershouldhaveawardedthetwojobsatissuetothe grievorandadeclarationthatthereasonthegrievorwasdeniedthosetransferswasdueto -~-------- 73 discrimination.Itasked thattheBoardremainseizedintheeventthattherewereanydifficultiesin implementingitsaward. InsupportofitspositiontheUnionreliedonthefollowingcases:ReTheCrowninRightof Ontario(MinistryofGovernmentServices)andOntarioPublicServiceEmployees'Union (KimmellLeat)(1991),21L.A.C.(4th)129(W.Kaplan);ReMinistryofHealthandOPSEU '(Stones)(1996),GSB#782/93(Saltman);ReTownofMidlandandOPSEU(KenStrain)(1995) (July28,1995)unreported(OwenGray). EMPLOYERARGUMENT Mr.Mason,counselfortheEmployer,tookthepositionthattheUnionhadfailedtoprove discriminationandafailuretoaccommodatethegrievortothepointofunduehardshipand, therefore,askedthatthegrievancesbedismissed. Dealingfirstwiththeillegaladoptionsproject,theEmployertookthepositionthatthegrievor mistakenlybelievedthatMr.PartridgehadofferedherthejobandthatMr.Levineunfairlyinterfered withthatofferbymakingderogatorycommentsaboutherandbyinterjectingMs.Fongintothe competition.However,Mr.Partridge'sevidencewasclear.Hedidnotpromisethegrievorthejob. Hesimplysaidthatshewasthefirstonetocontacthimandthathewouldconsiderher.Heknew thegrievorandhadworkedwithherinthepast.HesaidthathedidnotneedMr.Levine'sinputand thathemadethedecisionthatMs.Fongwasthemoresuitableandappropriate'candidateonhisown initiative.Mr.PartridgedidnotrememberMr.Levinemakinganyderogatorycommentsaboutthe '----------------------~------~~---- 74 gnevor. Mr.Levinetestifiedthat,asistheusualprocedure,hewasinformedaboutthepositionandasked toproposeacandidate.HeproposedMs.Fongbecausehebelievedthatshewasthemostsuitable candidate.Healsofranklyacknowledgedthathewasnotpreparedtoreleasethegrievor.Hehad alreadydecidedthatanattendancereviewwasnecessaryanddidnotbelieveitwouldbeappropriate forhertochangejobsinthecircumstances.Thatwasareasonablemanagementposition.Ms.Fong hadmoresenioritythanthegrievorandwasamoresuitablecandidate.Therehasbeenno suggestionbytheUnionthatshewasnot.TheUnionhasmerelycriticizedthemethodsusedin awardingherthejob..Eveniftheprocesswashurriedandcursory,itwasnotdiscriminatorynor improper. WithrespecttothegrievancesconcerningthefailureoftheEmployertoaccommodate,Mr.Mason tookthepositionthatthegrievorreceivedalloftheequipmentthathadbeensuggestedbytheQuick ResponseTeamassessment.Althoughthegrievorclaimedtobedissatisfiedwiththeequipment, shewasunabletosaywithanyspecificitywhatwaslacking. Mr.Levineproposedthepurchaseof theequipment,atacostofmorethan$30,000.00.Therewasnodelayorresistanceinmeetingthat ,- initialrequest.TheMinistryalsopurchasedtrainingby·thesupplieroftheequipmentandprovided thegrievorwiththeservicesofMs.McEvoy.WhileMs.McEvoymightnotbeconsideredanexpert inthefieldofaccommodation,sheisclearlyknowledgeableaboutaccommodationmattersanddid attempttoassistthegrievorineverywaypossible.Thegrievormaintainedthatshewasunableto learnhowtooperatealloftheequipment.ItwasMs.McEvoy'sevidencethatthegrievordidnot 75 needtoknowitall.Perhaps,iftherewasamistake,itmightbethattheMinistryprovidedtoomuch equipmenttoosoon. Ms.McEvoydidnotnecessarilyagreewithallofMr.Stuart-Vanderburg'sreport.Theissueisnot whether Mr.Stuart-Vanderburg'sreportwasfollowedtotheletter,butratherwhetherthegrievorwas accommodated.IftheUnioncontendsthattheMinistryfailedtoaccommodatethegrievorbecause itfailedtocomplywith Mr.Stuart-Vanderburg'sreportinitstotality,theonuswasontheUnionto call Mr.Stuart-Vanderburgtodefendhisreport.Mr.MasonalsopointedoutthatMr.Stuart- VanderburgsawthegrievorveryearlyintheprocesswhileMs.McEvoyworkedwithherovera periodoftime,visitedherofficeandhadfirsthandknowledgeoftheherneeds. TheEmployerchallengedtheUnion'spositionthatthegrievor'slightingneedswerenevermet.It wasrecommendedthatsheworkinadarkroomwithonlyadesklamptoavoidglareonthescreen. Thegrievorwastoldtoorderone.Shewasnotexpectedtobringoneinherself.TheMinistrywas preparedtopayforthelamp.Ms.McEvoyblockedthewindowinanattempttokeepoutlight.The factthatshe.didnotagreewiththeVanderburgreportregardingthepinktubesdoesnotmeanthat theMinistryfailedtoaccommodatethegrievor. ItwasMs.McEvoy'sopinion,basedonher experienceandknowledgeofthegrievor,thatthepinklightswerenotrequired. ThegrievorreliedheavilyonthefactthatMs.McEvoyfailedtoprovidegelscreensforthe computer.ThosegelscreenswerenotrecommendedintheVanderburghreport,butweresuggested byMs.McEvoy.Sheexperimentedwiththembutwasunabletodesignamethodofattachingthem 76 tothescreen.ThefactisthattheUnioncallednoevidencetoshowthatthegelscreenswouldhave madeadifference.Accommodationisanexperimentalprocessthatrequiresadaptationtothe circumstances.Inthiscasethegelscreenswerenoteasilyadaptedtothegrievor'ssituation.The Employer'sfailuretoprovidethosescreensisnotafailuretoaccommodate.TheUnionappearsto betakingthepositionthateverysuggestionorrecommendationconcerningaccommodationbecame anecessity.Thatissimplynotthecase,ascanbeseenbytheongoingeffortsofMs.McEvoy.Each suggestionwasproposedinanattempttomeetsomeoftheconcernsofthegrievor.Afailureto meetallofthoseneedsisnotafailuretoaccommodate,astheUnionwouldsuggest. Withrespecttothegrievor'sclaimthatshedidnotreceivesufficienttraining,theEmployerasserted thatthegrievorwassimplynotsatisfiedwiththetrainingshereceived.Thatisnotthesameas sayingthatitwasinadequate.Fromthememositisclearthatthegrievordidnotavailherselfofall ofthetrainingtimepurchasedbytheEmployer.SheclaimedthatshewaswaitingforMs.McEvoy ortheEmployertoschedulethetraining.Nevertheless,therewassomeonusonhertoensurethat shereceivedallofthenecessarytrainingtooperatetheequipment.Accommodationisatwo-way streetandanemployeemustshowsignsofcooperatingwithandassistingtheEmployerinthe process. ThegrievoralsoreliedonthefactthattheIBMScreenReaderwasneverproperlyfunctional.The evidencewasclearthattheScreenReaderdidnotworkwellwiththegovernment'se-mailsystem. FromMs.McEvoy'smemosweknowthattheMinistrywastryingtodevelopitsownprofileto allowthetwosystemstooperatetogether.TheMinistrycannotbeheldaccountableforthefactthat <i''i' 77 itwasunabletodesignsoftwaretomeetthatneed.ItwasthepositionoftheEmployerthatithad madeanextraordinaryeffortinthisregardandcannotbeseentobewanting. TheEmployernotedthattheUnionofferedconsiderablecriticismabouttheeffortsoftheQRTin accommodatingthegrievor'sdisabilityneeds.It claimedthattheQRTwasunderfundedand overworkedandtooslowtorespond. ItreadsomeofthecommentsinMs.McEvoy'smemosas admissionsofthatstate.However,whatisclearfromthememos,arguedtheEmployer,isthatthe basicaccommodationwasinplaceandthegrievorhadsometrainingontheequipment.Additional traininghadbeenboughtandpaidfor.Thegrievorwasnotleftalonetodealwiththeequipmentas wassuggestedbytheUnion.Ms.McEvoywasalwaysavailableasaresource.Shehoweverdidnot havetobeinconstantattendanceinordertofulfilherobligationswithrespecttothegrievor.The MinistryofCommunityandSocialServicesistheonlyMinistrywithasimilarofficeordepartment anditdidthebestitcouldinthecircumstances.TheEmployerarguedthatthereissomeonuson anemployeetoparticipateandco-operateinhis/heraccommodation.Notalloftheproblemsthe grievorencounteredweretheEmployer'sfault.Theevidenceisclearthatshecouldhavehadmore traininghadsheasked.Shehadbeenprovidedwiththemanualsandcouldhaveandshouldhave beenreferringtothosemanuals. Withrespecttothegrievor'ssecondgrievanceconcerningtheCourtDutyOfficerposition,the EmployertookthepositionthatMr.Levine'sreasonswerebasedonbonafidebusiness considerations. Itwas hisviewthat,ifthegrievorhadtakentheposition,hewouldhavehadto transferhercasefiles,whereasthepersonwhotookoverthejobhadnoongoingfilestoredistribute. 78 Thatpersoncouldstartimmediatelywithverylittledisruptiontoanyone'sworkload.Itwasalso reasonablefor Mr.Levinetobeconcernedaboutthegrievor'sattendance.Itwashisevidencethat itwouldhavebeeneasiertorelieveaparoleofficerthantheCourtDutyOfficer.Althoughtherewas astand-byscheduleforemergencyrelief,thepersonscheduledonstand-bywouldhavehadto transferhisorhercaseloadfortheperiodoftheabsence,whichwouldhavebeenasdisruptiveas transferringthegrievor's.Hisdecisionwasnotdiscriminatorybutareasonableexerciseof managementfunctions.TheissueisnotwhethertheEmployerwasrightorwronginitsdecision butratherwhetherthedecisionwasdiscriminatory. Withrespecttothethirdgrievanceregarding Mr.Lafantasie,thegrievorobjectedto'thefactthatMr. LafantasieusednotesfromtheWDHPPmeeting.Grievancenumber4dealswithasimilar complaintregardingMerlynGreen.Mr.Masontookthepositionthattherewasnothingimproper ineither Mr.LafantasieorMr.Greenusingwhateverinformationtheyhadinattemptingtodealwith thegrievance.Additionally,ittookthepositionthattherewasnoevidencethatthenoteswereused asamethodofharassment. TheEmployerassertedthat,withrespecttothegrievanceallegingthatMr.Lafantasiethreatened herbystating"ifyouareinterestedinopportunitiesitwouldbeunfortunateifalldiscussionofjob opportunitiessuddenlycomestoastandstillbecausewe'reinvolvedinanadversarialsituation."Mr. Masontookthepositionthat,withinthecontextoftheentireconversation,thegrievor's characterizationofhiscommentasathreatwassimplyincorrect.ThepartieswereataStage2 grievancemeetingtoattempttoresolvethegrievor'soutstandingcomplaints.Thegrievorinsisted, 79 beforeconsideringanydiscussionofsettlement,onanadmissionofguiltfromtheEmployer.She insistedthroughoutthemeetingthat,unlesstheEmployerwaspreparedtoacknowledgeits discriminatorypractices,therecouldbenosettlement.Mr.Lafantasie'scommentismadewithin thecontextofthatdiscussion.WhatMr.Lafantasiemeantbythecommentwasthat,giventhe grievor'sandtheUnion'sposition,therecouldbenodiscussionofjobopportunitiesorsettlement ofthegrievance.ThegrievorclaimsthatMr.Lafantasiethreatenedtoend"alldiscussionofjob opportunities."TheEmployertookthepositionthatthetapedisclosesthatwhatMr.Lafantasiesaid was"ifanydiscussionofjobopportunities."Inanyevent,itwasnotmeantasathreatbutwas expressedasaconcern,withinthecontextofthatmeeting,thatalldiscussionwouldbecurtailed giventhegrievor'sposition. Thenextgrievancedealswiththeallegationthat Mr.Levinekeptafalseandsecretfileonthe grievor.Infact,therewerenofalsedocumentswithinthatfile,butitwaskeptsecretfromthe grievor.Theevidencefromthewitnesseswasclear.Itwasstandardpracticetokeepasupervisory fileseparateandapartfromapersonnelfile.Notallinformationaboutanemployeeshouldorcould I beplacedintoapersonnelfile.ThefactisthatMr.Levineneverusedthedocumentsinthefile againstthegrievorbutratherusedthemtodefendhimselfintheWDPPHcomplaint.Thefactisthat Mr.Levinewasentitledtokeepaseparafe'fileandhisdecisiontodosoisnotaviolationofanyterm orprovisionofthecollectiveagreement. Mr.LevinewasaccusedofharassingthegrievorwhenheaskedtheHumanResourcesDepartment tokeepthesupervisoryjobcompetitionopenandthencalledthegrievortoadviseheroftheposting. ------~---._------_.._---------- 80 Itwasthegrievor'sevidencethatshebelievedthatMr.Levinediditintentionallyto"setherup." Mr.Levine'sevidenceshowedthat,atthatpointintime,thegrievorhadfiledseveralgrievances againsthimaswellasaWDHPPcomplaint.I,nthosecircumstancesitisjustsimplyincredibleto believethatMr.Levinewouldhavedoneanythingthatwouldhaveprecipitatedorpromptedanother grievance.Thisgrievanceisbasedonthegrievor'sinterpretationofMr.Levine'saction,andnot basedonfact. Thenextgrievanceinvolvesthegrievor'sallegationthatMr.Levinediscriminatedagainstherby makingfalseandderogatorystatementsinachecklistforajobcompetition.Theformfilledoutby Mr.Levinewascompletedaccordingtousualpractice.Mr.Levinestatedthefactsandhisopinion ofthegrievorandstandsbythatopiniontoday.Hiscommentsthatthegrievor'sworkhadsuffered wasaconclusionoffactbasedonhisreview0fherworkperformance.Itcannotbesaidthathe actedinadiscriminatoryfashioninthecircumstances. TheninthgrievancedealswiththeclaimofthegrievorthattheDeputyMinistryofCommunityand SocialServicesharassedher by assigningMr.LafantasietoaStage2grievancemeeting.It wasthe grievor'scontentionthattheDeputyMinisterknewthatshehadtwooutstandinggrievancesagainst Mr.Lafantasieandthatherdecisiontoappointhimtohandlethegrievancemeetingwasharassment. TheEmployertookthepositioninthefirstinstancethatitwasquestionablewhethertheGrievance SettlementBoardhadanyjurisdictiontoconsiderthatissue.Evenifitdid,thegrievoradmittedthat shedidnotobjectatthetimeandagreedtogoaheadwiththemeeting.Thepropertimetoprotest wouldhavebeenthen.ThefactisitisdoubtfulthattheDeputy-Ministerknewanythingaboutthe ----------- 81 grievororhergrievances.Inanyevent,thereisnoevidencebeforethisBoardofthemotivesofthe DeputyMinisterandthemerefactthatshedesignatedMr.Lafantasietoattendatthegrievance meetingisnotproofoftheallegations.Mr.Masontookthepositionthatthisgrievance,however, issignificantinthatitcastsdoubtonthegrievor'sperceptionofeventsastheywereunfolding. ThetenthgrievancefiledbythegrievorissimilartothepreviousoneregardingMr.Levine's"secret" file,however,thisoneallegesthat Mr.Levineusethefileinviolationoftherulesofprogressive discipline.Thefactisthat Mr.Levinedidnotdisciplinethegrievor.Heneverusedtheinformation inthatfiletoherdetriment,butrather,usedittodefendhimselfagainsthercomplaintsabouthim. Finally,thelastgrievanceconcernsthelengthoftimeinprocessingthegrievor'sgrievancesandis simplyreflectiveoftheprocessofallgrievancearbitrations. Arisingofthoseissuesareseveraladditionalissuesconcerningtheallegationsofdiscriminationand harassment.Forexample,thegrievor'sallegationswithrespecttotheguidedogleavehavebeen showntobeunfounded.Theleavetoattendguidedogschoolwasgranted.Thewitnessesstated thatwhentherequestwasfirstmadeitwasnewandtherewerenopoliciesorproceduresuponwhich ,~ theycouldrely.Therewassomedelayinworkingoutthedetailsoftheleave-buttherewasno suggestionthatshewouldnotbegrantedtheleaveand,infact,wasgrantedtheleaveasrequested. TheUnionattemptedtomakeissueofthefactthattheEmployerhadtoconsidertherequestatall. However,thegrievor'srequestfortimeofftoattendschooltobetrainedintheuseofaguidedog isnotasclearacaseforaccommodationassomeoftheothergrievor'sclaims.Althoughthegrievor 82 wasrequiredtodosometravellinginherjobduties,thattravellingcouldbeminimized.Notall peoplewithsightproblemsuseaguidedoganditisanindividualdecision. Itis notsurprisingthat, whentherequestwasfirstfiled,theEmployerwantedsometimetoconsidertherequestwithinthe contextoftheworkingenvironment. Thegrievor,accordingtotheEmployer,mademuchoftheattendancemonitoringofJoyceGreen. ThereisnoevidencethatMr.LevineaskedMs.Greentoscrutinizethegrievorascloselyasthe memosindicateshedid.Infacthisevidenceisthathespoketoheraboutthosememosandmade itclearthathedidnotneedthatmuchinformation.Hedid,however,askhertokeeptrackofallof theemployeesintheofficesothathewouldknowwhentheywereoutoftheofficeandwhere.If Ms.Green'smemosareinappropriateorimproper,thereisnoevidencethatMr.Levineeither solicitedorapprovedofthem. .TheEmployeralsoreferredtothegrievor'sevidenceregardingMr.Levine'scommentwhilecrossing thestreet;namely,"don'tfallforthatcrap." Mr.Levinedeniesmakingthestatement.Therewere nowitnessescalledtocorroboratethegrievor'sclaim,nowithstandingthefactthatshewaswitha fellowemployeeatthetime.TheEmployertookthepositionthattheonuswasonthegrievorto ,- provethatMr.Levinemadethestatementandshefailedtodoso. TheEmployertookthepositionaswellthattheattendancereviewprocesshasbeenconsideredby theGSBbeforeandhasbeenfoundnottobeaviolationofthecollectiveagreement.Thegrievor wasoftheviewthatbecauseMr.Levineknewofhermedicalcondition,itwasunnecessaryto 'i'.. 83 conductsuchareview.However,thepurposeoftheattendancereviewisnotsimplytoverifythe reasonsfortheabsencesbutrathertoworkwiththeemployeetoattempttominimizethoseabsences. Thegrievorconsideredthisattendancereviewasanaffront,asaninsult,andasdisciplinaryaction. ThemeetingwascalledforFebruary8,1994anditisclearthatveryshortlythereafterthegrievor beganfilingthefirstofhernumerousgrievances.Thatwasthechiefcauseofthedeteriorationin therelationshipbetweenMr.Levineandthegrievor,nottheattendancereviewinandofitself.As well,thegrievorcontendedthatshehadbeendeniedtheassistanceofanemploymentequityofficer duringtheattendancereviewmeeting.Theevidence,however,istothecontrary.Shewasadvised thatthis·meetingwassimplytodiscussherattendanceandthat,whenemploymentequityissues arose,shewouldbemorethanwelcometoinvitesomeonetoassisther.Thefactisthatthe meetingsnevergottothatpointbecausethegrievordidnotparticipate.Oncethegrievancesandthe WDHPPcomplaintwerefiled,theperformancereviewwasforgotten.Nevertheless,contendedthe Employer,performancereviewsareareasonableexerciseoftheEmployer'sdutiesand,inthis particularcase,wasnotdiscriminatory. ThegrievoralsointerpretedtheEmployer'sinitialreactiontoataperecorderatthatmeetingas harassment.TheevidencehowevershowsthatMr.LevineandMs.Blackmorewerenotexpecting ataperecorderandweresomewhattakenabackwhenthegrievorrequesteditbeusedtorecordthe meeting.Themeetingwasadjournedinordertodealwiththeissueandultimatelythedecisionwas madetoallowthetaperecorder.Thegrievorinterpretsthatincidentasanotherexampleof harassment,whichisnotthecase.ItwasnotunreasonableinthecircumstancesforMr.Levineor Ms.Blackmoretobesurprisedandtoaskforsometimetoconsidertherequest. ii'\'i' 84 TheEmployerpointedoutthatthegrievorplacedmuchemphasisonMr.Levine'scommentina Novembermemoaboutcreatingacrisistoemphasizetothegrievortheneedtomakechangesinher life.Mr.Levine'sevidenceisthat'Whathemeantwasthatheneededtoimpressuponherthe seriousnessofherattendanceproblems.Thatagaincannotbeinterpretedtobediscriminationor harassmentbutsimplythegrievor'sperceptionorinterpretationofamemo.Whenreadwithinthe contextofthatmemo,Mr.Levine'smeaningisclear. InsummarytheEmployertookthepositionthatuntil1994thegrievorandMr.Levinehadagood workingrelationship.TheproblemssurfacedwhenMr.Levineraisedtheattendancereview.The Union hassuggestedthatthoseproblemsaroseearlierbutthegrievor'sownevidenceisthatMr; Levinesupportedher.Hewasresponsibleforextendingherunclassifiedcontractwhileshewasoff ill,heorganizedagiftfromherco-workersinthedepartment,hesupportedthepurchaseofthe equipmentforthegrievorandwasinstrumentalinitspromptdelivery.TheUnionpointstoMr. ,Levine'smemosasevidenceofhisbadattitudetowardsthegrievor.ThosememosdoshowthatMr. Levinereachedapointofirritationandpossiblyevenresentmenttowardsthegrievor,butfromthe evidence,itisclearthatthatwasmoreofapersonalnaturethanprofessional.Thegrievorwasfiling grievanceaftergrievanceandhadmadesome18allegationsagainstMr.Levineunderthe.WDHPP. ItisnotsurprisingthatMr.Levinebecamedefensiveinhisdealingswithher.Thegrievorhas interpretedMr.Levine'spersonalresponsetothesegrievancesandcomplaintsasdiscrimination. TheEmployertookthepositionhoweverthatareviewoftheevidenceshowsthatthatwasnotthe caseandthat'thegrievorreceivedalloftheassistancetheMinistrycouldprovideandthatMr. Levinewassupportiveofthatassistance,atleastintheearlystages. 85 TheEmployerreliedonthefollowingcases:ReBoardofSchoolTrustees,SchoolDistrictNo.23 (CentralOkanagan)etalv.Renaudetal.;OntarioHumanRightsCommissionetal Intenreners(1992),95DLR(4th)577(SCC);ReMinistryoftheAttorneyGeneralandOPSEU (Fernandez)(1993),GSB#2644/92(W.Kaplan)andReMinistryofCorrectionalServicesand OPSEU(R.Rolfe)GSB#1116/89(1990)(M.Watters); InreplyMr.RolandtookthepositionthatwhileitmighthavebeenreasonableforMr.Levineto exhibitsomedefensivenessregardingthegrievor,thatdidnotgivehimlicensetocrossthelineinto outrightdiscriminationbecauseofhandicap.HealsosuggestedthatthememosandMr.Levine's .evidenceshowmorethansimpleresentmentbutratheroutrighthostility. DECISION Ascanbeseenfromthepreceding,thishaSbeenalengthyanddifficultcase.Thegrievorhas sufferedfromserioushealthproblemssinceatleast1989.Atthetimeofthehearingsherhealthhad deterioratedtothepointthatanotherkidneytransplantisadistinctpossibility,perhapseven probability.Hereyesightcontinuestobeverypoorandsheisconfinedtoawheelchair.Itisher beliefthatallofthesemedicalproblemshavebeenexacerbatedbytheactionsoftheEmployer,and inparticular,Mr.MarcLevine.~She hasfiledelevengrievancesconcerningwhatshecharacterizes asactsofomissionandcommissionbytheEmployer.Shesincerelybelievesthatshehasbeen treatedunfairlybytheMinistryingeneralandMr.Levineinparticular.Becausetheseissuesareso importanttoher,IhavedecidedtoaddresseachallegationsothatshecanappreciatethefactthatI understoodandconsideredhercomplaintsinathoroughandcomprehensivemannertakinginto '-----~---------------- 86 accounteachallegationseparatelyandaspartofthewhole.Forthatreason,Ihavedecidedto includeeachgrievanceinitsentirety,intheorderinwhichtheywerepresentedatthehearing. EXHIBIT#1 Thisgrievance,datedApril18,1994,allegesthefollowing: IgrievethatIhavebeendiscriminatedagainstbytheMinistryofCommunityandSocial ServicesinthepersonofMarcLevine,Supervisor,ProbationServices,1000FinchAve.W. Ste.201,Downsview,Ont.M3J2VS,inviolationofthecollectiveagreementincludingbut notlimitedtoarticleAl.landviolationoftheHumanRightsCode,Se.10(1),PartA sec.4(I)and4(2).IgrievetoothatIwasdeniedmyrighttoUnionRepresentationin violationofthecollectiveagreement. Itask,asremedy,forthefollowing: 1.ThatIbegiventhepositionofManager,IllegalAdoptionsProjectthatI wasdeniedduetomydisability,oracomparableposition. 2.ThatIreceiveproperjobaccommodationformydisabilityassetoutbytheneeds assessmentcompletedbyJohnStuart-VanderburgoftheQuickResponseTeamand anyupdatedassessments,includingbutnotlimitedto:computerequipment,visual aids,clericalassistance,properlighting,spacialrequirementsandcompletetraining onallcomputerrelatedequipment. 3.Thatallharassmentofmyselfbymysupervisor,MarcLevine,becauseofmy disabilityandjobaccommodationneedsceaseanddesistimmediately. .4.ThatmySupervisor,MarcLevine,berequiredtoparticipateinacourse/program relatedtoaccommodationof/sensitivitytowardsdisabledemployees. 5.Thatmyattendancerecordsbecorrectedtoaccuratelyreflectmysicktimeoff. 6.Thatmyattendancerecordandpersonnelfileincluderecognitionofthefactthatmy sicktimeoffissignificantlyrelatedtomylackofproperjobaccommodationinthe. workplace. 7.ThatIreceiveanapologyinwritingfrommysupervisor,MarcLevineonbehalfof himselfandtheMinistryforhisdiscriminationofmeandforthe\emotiqnal hardshipandstressthathehascausedmeasaresultofhisharassmentand discrimination. 8.ThatmySupervisorMarcLevinetakestepstorepairthedamagedonetomy credibility,reputationandfuturecareerdevelopmentopportunitiesbecauseofhis 87 inappropriatecommentsanddiscriminatoryactions. 9.ThatIbeallowedproperUnionrepresentationasismyrightunderthecollective agreement. EXHIBIT#2,datedApril18,1994 IgrievethatmySupervisor,MarcLevine,1000FinchAve.W.,Suite201,Downsview,Ont. M3J2V5,hasdiscriminatedagainstmeinthathebasawardedthepositionofcourtduty officertoTheresaDompierre,acontractemployeeratherthatacceptingmyapplicationfor theposition. Theremedyrequested: Thatthegrievorbeawardedthepositionasrequested. EXHIBIT#3datedJune9,1994 IgrievethatAndrelafantasie,Manager,FinanceandAdministration,theDeputyMinister's designeedidharassmeattheStage2grievancemeetingofthecollectiveagreementinthat thesaidAndreLafantasie,DeputyMinister'sdesignee,attemptedtointroducetranscripts oftheinformalhearings(heldonFeb24/94,March25/95andApril5/94without notificationorpermissionfromthegrievorwrittenororal.AtStage2nopermissionwas giventoAndre.LafantasiebytheGrievororthegrievor'srepresentativetointroducewritten ororalevidencefromtheinformalhearings. Theremedyrequested: 1.Thewithdrawalofthesaidtranscripts 2.AwrittenapologyfromtheDeputyMinisterortheDeputyMinister'sdesignee AndreLafantasie 3.Thatallrecordofmygrievancebeexpungedofinformationrelatingtothematter. EXHIBIT#4datedJune9,1994 IgrievethatMerlynGreen,Manager,ProbationServicesdidaidandabetharassmentofme byAndreLafantasie,Deputyminister'sdesigneeinthatthesaidMerlynGreenprovided transcriptsofinformalhearingsheldonFeb24/94,March25/94 andApril5194 toAndre Lafantasie,DeputyMinister:'sdesigneewithoutnotificationtoorpermissionfromme writtenororal. Theremedyrequested: I.AwrittenapologyfrornMerlynGreen,Manager,ProbationServices 88 2.Withdrawalofthesaidtranscripts. 3.Thatallrecordofmygrievancebeexpungedofinformationrelatingtothematter. EXHIBIT#5datedJune9,1994 IgrievethatonJune3/94at2195YongeSt.AndreLafantasietheDeputyMinister's designeeattheStage2meetingdidstate;"Ifyou'reinterestedinopportunitesitwouldbe unfortunateifalldiscussionofjobopportunitiessuddenlycomestoastandstillbecause we'reinvolvedinanadversarialsituation" Theremedyrequested: 1.AwrittenapologyfromAndreLafantasie,theDeputyMinister'sdesignee, specificallydeletinghiswordsanditsthreat, 2.AllrecordofhisthreatbeexpungedfromanyrecordsandfurtherthatIreceivea writtenapologyfromtheDeputyMinisterindicatingthatsuchathreatbyAndre LafantasieortheDeputyMinisterwillnotholdfutureconsequencesforme. EXHIBIT#6datedJune27,1994 IgrievethattheMinistryofCommunityandSocialServicesinthepersonofMarcLevine, ProbationSupervisor,MinistryofCommunityandSocialServices,1000Finchave.W.,Ste 201,Downsviewhasintroducedfalsedocumentationtoaninternalinvestigation.The investigator'sreportstates:"Documentationindicatespriortorequestofattendancereview respondenthasspokentocomplainantinformallyonseveraloccasionsregardingher attendance"whereasonthemattersreferredtothegrievorwasneveradvisedofany documentationbeingkept,)nformallyorformally,didnotreceivecopiesofsuch documentation,noristhereanyreferencetoanyconcernsorcopiesofdocumentation regardingattendanceonthegrievor'spersonnelfile,therehasbeennoindication whatsoeverofaprogressivedisciplineforattendance. Theremedyrequested: 1.Thatdocumentsreferredtobewithdrawnfromtheinvestigationaswellasfromany otherproceedings 2.Thatallrecordsbeexpungedofsaiddocumentation 3.ThatthegrievorreceiveawrittenapologyfromMarcLevine,ProbationSupervisor, Min.ofCommunityandSocialServices,1000FinchAve.W,Ste201,Downsview EXHIBIT#7datedAugust22,1994 IgrievethattheMinistryofCommunityandSocialServices,inthepersonofMarcLevine, fonnerSupervisor,ProbationServices,1000FinchAve.W.,Ste201,Downsview,OntoM3J 89 2Z5didharassmeonAugust2/94inviolationofthecollectiveagreement. Theremedyrequested: 1.ThatallharassmentofmebyMarcLevine,Formersupervisor,Probationsupervisor andtheMinistryofCommunityandSocialServicesceaseanddesistimmediately 2.AwrittenletterofapologyfromMarcLevineforhisongoingharassmentofmeand writtenassurancesthatsuchanincidentwillnotoccuragain. 3.AwrittenassurancefromtheDeputyMinistertheharassmentofmefromMarc Levineormycomplaintsofsamewillnothaveconsequencesforme,either personallyorinmyendeavourstofurthermycareer. EXHIBIT#8datedAugust22,1994 IgrievethattheMin.ofCommunityandSocialServicesinthepersonofMarcLevine, ProbationSupervisor,1000FinchAve.W.,Ste201,Downsviewdidmakefalseand derogatorystatementsagainstmeinawrittenreferenceforjobcompetitionCRP-TAO4/94 Theremedyrequested: ·1.ThatthediscriminatorystatementsandactionsofMarcLevine,FormerSupervisor, ProbationServices,ceaseanddesistimmediately. 2.AwrittenapologyfromMarcLevineforthefalseandderogatorystatementsmade againstmeinhiswrittenreferencedatedMay16,1994andforitspossible detrimentaleffectonmyreputation,credibilityandpossiblecareeradvancement. 4.Awithdrawalofsaidreferencefromallfilesandrecords. 5.AwrittenletterofapologyfromthedeputyMinisteralongwithassurancesthatthe discriminatorycommentsandactionsbyMarcLevinewillceaseanddesist immediatelyandthathiscommentsandactionswillnotholdfutureconsequences formepersonallyorinmyendeavourstofurthermycareer. EXHIBIT#9datedSeptember14,1994 IgrievethatRosemaryProctor,DeputyMinister,MinistryofCommunityandSocial Services,didonSeptember8,1994,ataStage2meetingdesignatedAndreLafantasie, Manager,FinanceandAdministration,toactasDeputyMinister'sdesigneebeingaware thatthegrievorhadtwooutstandinggrievancesinprocessagainstMr.Lafantasiefor harassmentandforthreatening. Theremedyrequested: ',.I""• 90 I.AwrittenapologyfromtheDeputyminister,RosemaryProctor,forherharassmentofthegrievor inthisincident. 2.ThatAndreLafantasie,Manager,FinanceandAdministration,notactasDeputy Minister'sdesigneeinanyfuturemattersconcerningthegrievor. EXHIBIT#10datedSeptember14,1994 IgrievethatMarcLevine,formerSupervisor,Min.OfCommunityandSocialServices, ProbationServices,didharassmeandviolatedtherulesofProgressivedisciplineby keepingaseparateandsecretfileapartfrommypersonnelfileinwhichhecollected informationandusedthatnegativeinformationtomydetriment.Iwasnotadvisedofthe existenceofsuchafile,givencopiesofanydocumentationonthatfile,norwasIgiven accesstooradvisedoftheexistenceofanynegativedocumentationconcerningme whatsoever.This"secret"filewassubmittedasevidencetoaformalinvestigation. Theremedyrequested: l.AwrittenapologyfromMarcLevineforhisharassmentofmeandforhiskeeping ofaseparatefileapartfrommypersonnelfileandusinginformationfromthatfile tomydetriment. 2.ThatIbegiventhefileinquestionandthatcopiesofsaidfileanddocumentation thereinbeexpungedfromanyfilesorrecordsinexistence. 3.Thatnoseparateandsecretfileapartfrommypersonnelfilebecreatedorkeptin thefutureandthatIbegivenfairaccesstoandknowledgeofdocumentationbeing keptorcollectedregardingmyself. EXHIBIT#11datedSeptember14,1994 Igrievethatitsaviolationofnaturaljusticethatitwilltaketheprocesstoresolvemy conflictsundermystatutoryandcollectiveagreementrightstwoormoreyearstoresolve. Theremedyrequested: .'.-.I.Aspeedyandfairresolutiontomyconflictsundermystatutoryandcollective agreementrights. Beforedealingwiththeindividualgrievances,itshouldbenotedthattherewasnodisputebetween thepartiesthatartic,leAofthecollectiveagreementpermitstheUniontoenforcetheEmployer's obligationsundertheOntarioHumanRightsCodeintheseproceeding.Therewasalsonodispute thatthegrievorsuffersfromadisabilityasdefinedintheCodeandthattheEmployerhasadutyto 91 accommodateherdisabilitytothepointofunduehardship.Thatdutytoaccommodatewas describedbyMr.JusticeMcIntyre'inReOntarioHumanRightsCommissionandSimpson-Sears Ltd.(1985),23D.L.R.(4th)321atpage335asrequiringtheEmployerto"takesuchstepsasmay bereasonabletoaccommodatewithoutundueinterferenceintheoperationoftheemployer's businessandwithoutundueexpensetotheemployer". Aswell,abriefexplanationofthearbitrationpr0cesswouldbehelpfultounderstandthebasisupon whichmydecisionisfounded.Arbitrationhasbeendescribedasanadjudicativeprocessdesigned toresolvedisputesarisingfromtheadministration,application,interpretationorallegedviolation ofthetermsofthecollectiveagreement.Thejurisdictionofanarbitratorarisesfromthecollective agreementandislimitedtoapplyingtheexpresstermsofthecollectiveagreement.Inthiscase,the grievancesbeforemeinvolvegeneralandspecificallegationsofdiscriminationandharassment becauseofhandicap.Thoseallegations,ifproven,arecontrarytotheexpressprovisionsofthe collectiveagreementandproperlywithinmyjurisdiction.Aswell,therearegrievancesinvolving discreteactsthatdonotsoclearlyfitwithintheconfinesofthecollectiveagreementandare thereforenotsoclearlyproper·subjectmatterforagrievance.Since,inmyview,thegeneral allegationsofharassment,discriminationandfailuretoaccommodatearetheprimaryallegations, Ihavedecidedtodealwiththosegrievancesfirstandconsiderthegrievancesinvolvingdiscreteacts oromissionsthatthegrievorallegesresultedindiscriminationandharassmentinlightofthose findings. Itis myopinion,basedontheevidencebeforeme,thattheEmployerhasfailedtoaccommodatethe 'i ---------------------~ 92 grievorinmanyways.Therecanbenodoubtthatatthebeginningofthegrievor'shealthproblems, startingwithherkidneytransplant,theEmployerand,inparticularMarcLevine,wassupportiveof thegrievorandtookstepstoaccommodateherdisability.AtMr.Levine'srecommendationit grantedher,anunclassifiedemployee,aleaveofabsenceforhertransplantandguaranteedhera jobwhenshewasfittoreturn.Shewasgivenaclassifiedpositionwhileonherleaveofabsence, eventhoughshetheEmployerknewofhermedicalcondition.Aswell,whenitbecameclearthat thegrievorcouldnotdoherworkwithouttechnologicalsupport,theEmployer,andagainMarc Levineinparticular,approvedwithoutquestiontheexpenditureofmorethan$30,000.00.The problemisthat,onceitpurchasedtheequipment,itessentiallyabandonedthegrievor.Whileitis truethattheEmployerpurchasedtrainingforthegrievor,itisobviousthatthetrainingwas inadequateinallrespects.Muchoftheinitialtrainingtimewasspentsettinguptheequipment.The ,grievortestifiedthatshewascomputerilliterateatthetimeandyetitappearsthatshewasleftalone tomastera,complexarrangementofcomputer,CCTVandScreenReader.Evensomethingone wouldhavethoughtcouldbeeasilycorrected,thatisthelightingandglareproblems,werenever dealtwithinasatisfactorymanner.ThegrievortoldMr.LevineandMs.McEvoythatshewas havingtroublewiththeequipmentbutitappearsnooneactuallyspentthetimetoascertainwhatshe coulddo.Ms.McEvoytestifiedthat,whenshefirstobservedthegrievorusingthecomputerand CCTV,sheseemedtobecomforfableandcompetent.Latervisitshowevershowedthatthegrievor washavingtroublewiththeVISTAandLYNXprograms,thattheviewingtablewasbreaking frequentlyandthattheScreenReaderwasnotoperational.Whatwasnotclearfromherevidence iswhat,ifanything,wasdonetoassistthegrievorwiththeseproblems. '.1.'., 93 AccordingtoMs.McEvoy,someoftheaccommodationrecommendedbyMr.Stuart-Vanderburg wasunnecessary.Forexample,itwasMs.McEvoy'sopinionthattheScreenReaderwouldbeof littleassistancetothegrievorand,asaresult,sheshowedlittleinterestinthegrievor'sproblems withit.Aswell,shewasnotconvincedthatthegelscreensor"pinklights"wouldhavehelpedthe lightingproblemsofthegrievor.Unfortunately,sheneverexplainedtothegrievorwhyshedidnot followthroughwithwhatthegrievorbelievedwasnecessaryinorderforhertodoherwork. Thegrievorwasnotinthepositiontodeterminewhatsheneeded.Throughoutthatperiodoftime shewassufferingfromnumerousmedicalproblemsandshewasunabletofulfillherobligationsas aP02.ShethoughtthatifalloftheequipmentrecommendedbyMr.Stuart-Vanderburghadbeen -providedandifshehadbeenproperlytrainedinitsuse,herproblemswithherworkwouldhave beeneliminated.Insteadshefoundherselfsittinginfrontofseveralthousandsofdollarsof technologicalequipmentshewasunabletouse.Inhindsight,Ms.McEvoyacknowledgedthe obvious.Thegrievorshouldhavebeeniritroducedtothisnewtechnologygraduallyandshouldhave beengivenmoretimeandtrainingtolearneachnewpieceofequipmentbeforebeingexpectedto mastersomethingnew. Insummary,theEmployerrailedtoaccommodatethegrievorbyneglectingtoprovideherwiththe requiredtrainingonthecomputerandrelatedequipment.Thegrievorhasaskedthatshebegiven theaccommodationsetoutintheneedsassessmentdonebyMr.Stuart-Vanderburg,including computerequipment,visualaids,clericalassistance,properlighting,spacialrequirements,and completetraining.Theevidencebeforemeisthatthegrievordidreceivealloftheequipment 94 recommendedbyMr.Stuart-Vanderburg.NeitherthegrievornorMs.McEvoysuggestedany additionalequipmentwasneeded.Thereisnoquestionthatthegrievorneedsandisentitledtoany additionaltrainingavailabletoensurethatshecanactuallyusethecomputerandrelatedequipment. TheEmployerisalsoobligedtoattempt,totheextentpossible,toadjustthelightinginheroffice toavoidglareonhercomputerscreen.Thatmight,butdoesnotnecessarily,includegelscreensor "pinklights". Thesecondgrievanceallegesthat Mr.Levinediscriminatedagainstthegrievorbydenyingherthe courtdutyofficerposition.Settingasideforthemomenttheallegationsofdiscrimination,Mr. Levine,asthegrievor'ssupervisor,failedinhisdutytoaccommodatethegrievorwhenhedenied herthepositionofcourtdutyofficer.Sheexplainedtohimthatthepositionwouldeliminateher problemsinvisitingclientsandattendingatmeetings.Thecourtwasacrossthestreetfromher homeanditwouldhavebeenmucheasierforhertohandleherworkloadifthetravelrequirements werereducedoreliminated.Mr.Levineappearstohavefocussedontheoperationalrequirements oftheofficewithoutanyconsiderationofhisobligationtoaccommodatethegrievor'sgenuineand practicalreasonsforwantingtheposition.Evenifitwouldhavebeenmoredisruptivetoawardher theposition,therewasnosuggestionthatdoingsowouldhavebeenanunduehardship.Thereis nodoubtthat,whateverpositionthegrievorheld,therewere gOl~g tobefrequentabsencesfrom worknecessitatingdisruptionstotheoperationsoftheoffice.Thereisnodoubt,aswell,thatthe courtdutyofficerpositionofferedthegrievorsomerelieffromherconstantbattletodoherjob.To theextentthatshecouldbeassignedtoapermanentsitewithouttheneedtotravel,thebenefitsto herfaroutweighedanyoperationalconcernsofMr.Levine.Whatisclearfromhisevidenceisthat --------------~---- 95 heneverconsideredherrequestforthepositionasanaccommodationissue,andheshouldhave. SeveraloftheremaininggrievancesallegethatMr.Levineharassedanddiscriminatedagainstthe grievorbecauseofherhandicap.Specifically,grievance#1allegesthatshewasdeniedtheposition intheillegaladoptionsprojectbecauseofherhandicap,grievance#2allegesthatshewasdenied thepositionofcourtdutyofficerbecauseofherhandicap,grievance#7alleges'thatMr.Levine harassedherwhenhesuggestedsheapplyforthetemporarysupervisorypositionwhenheknewthat hewouldnotgiveheragoodrecommendation,grievance#8allegesthatMr.Levinemadefalse andderogatorystatementsabouther,andgrievance#10allegesthatMr.Levineharassedherby _keepingasecretfilethatheusedtoherdetriment.Thegrievorrelies,toalargeextent,onthee-mail memosinMr.Levine'sfiles. Discriminationisadistinction,intentionalornot,basedongroundsrelatingtothepersonal characteristicsofaperson,whichhastheeffectofimposingobligationsordisadvantagesonsuch anindividualnotimposedonothersorwhichwithholdsorlimitsaccesstoopportunities,benefits andadvantagesavailabletoothers.TheCodeprohibitsdiscriminationonthegroundsofhandicap and,morespecificallyinthiscase,diabetes.DidMr.Levinetreatthegrievorinamannerthat imposedobligationsand/ordisadvantagedherbecauseofherhandicap? Havingconsideredtheevidenceoftheparties,thee-mailmemosandthehistoryoftherelationship , betweenthegrievorandMr.Levine,Iamsatisfiedthathedid.Idonotbelievethathedidso intentionallyorwithmalice.Nevertheless,decisionshemadeconcerningthegrievorandmemos !' ~~ f- a ----------~~--~~~------~--------- 96 hewroteabouthershowthatherhandicapwasalwaysafactorinhisdeliberations. Initiallyhewassupportiveandsympathetictothegrievor.Headvocatedforherleaveofabsence in1989andapprovedwithoutquestionallofthecomputerequipmentrecommendedbyMr.Stuart- VanderburgandtheQRT.EventhoughthegrievormaintainsthatshecomplainedtoMr.Levine abouttheequipment,Iaccepthisevidencethathedidnotrealizethatsomeofherdifficultyin completingherassignmentswasdirectlyrelatedtothelackofaccommodation..BetweenJuneof 1990whenshereturnedtoworkasaclassifiedP02and late1993,Mr.Levinedoesnotseemtohave takenissuewithhernumerousabsencesfromwork.Whenhedecidedinlate1993thatanattendance reviewwasinorder,hehadclearlybecomefrustratedwiththesituation.HismemotoMs. Blackmoreisproofofthat.Hebelievedthatherworkhadsufferedandiliatshewasnolonger reliableordependable.Hefeltthatthegrievorneededtotakebettercareofherself.Hewas concernedaboutconfrontingheranddescribedherashavinga"strongtemperament".Heexpected thediscussionwouldbe"messy".Thegrievorwasoffendedandconsideredtheattendancereview tobedisciplinaryinnature.Mr.Levinewasawareofthereasonsforherabsencesandhadnever questionedtheminthepast.Shefelttheattendancereviewwasmeanttopunishandharassherfor thoseabsences.However,Mr.Levine'sdecisiontoconductanattendancereviewdoesnotconstitute discrimination.Ashersupervisorandthemanageroftheentiredepartment,hewasentitledto discusswiththegrievorthefactofherabsences,theprognosisforfutureattendanceproblemsand whatcouldbedonetoimproveherattendance.Discriminationmeanstheactofmakingadistinction against,orinfavourof,apersonbasedonaprohibitedgroundratherthanonindividualmerIt. Provingdisriminationrequiresevidencethat,inthiscase,thegrievorwastreatedmoreunfavourably ---------------------~~.-~- 97 thanotherswithoutahandicap.IfMr.Levinehadignoredthegrievor's'attendancerecordand allowedtheabsencestocontinuewithoutquestion,hewouldhavebeentreatingthegrievormore favourably thanotherswhoselegitimateabsenceswereabovethedepartmentalaveragebutwerethe subjectofattendancereviews.Inthesecirumstances,thegrievor'sattendancerecordwas consistentlyhigher than thedepartmentaverage.Itwasnotonlyreasonablebutunderstandablethat Mr.Levinedecidedtoconductanattendancereviewinthecircumstances.Indoingso,Idonot believethatMr.Levineintendedtodiscriminateandharassthegrievor.However,theirrelationship afterthatsteadilydeterioratedsuchthatallegationsandcounterallegationswerefiledandthey becamepartiesintwoadversarialprocesses;namelythegrievanceprocedureandtheWDHPP complaint. Mr.Levinebecamemorecriticalandnegativeaboutherasherneedforassistanceand accommodationincreased. Thefirstactualdisputeinvolvedthetemporarypositionintheillegaladoptionsproject.Thegrievor allegesthat Mr.Levinediscriminatedagainstherbyawardingthepositiontoanother.Inmyview Mr.Levine'sconcernsaboutherattendanceandherworkperformancewerelegitimate.Shedid haveahistoryoffrequentand,insomeinstances,prolongedabsencesfromwork.Thegrievor herselfconcededthatshewashavingdifficultygettingherworkdonebutattributedittoherinability tomasterthecomputerequipment.Regardlessofthereasons,Mr.Levinewasnotactinginbadfaith whenhedecidedshewouldnotbethebestchoiceatthattimefortheillegaladoptionsproject.Mr. Partridgewaslookingforsomeonewhowouldbereliable.Mr.Levinebelievedthatthegrievor's unsatisfactoryworkandattendancerecordweighedagainstherandtoldthattoMr.Partridge.Mr.' Levinewasnotdiscriminatingagainstthegrievorindoingso.Unlikethecourtdutyofficerposition, 98 therewasnoevidencethatthedutiesofthispositionweremoresuitedtosomeonewiththegrievor's disabilityandthattheEmployeroughttohaveawardedittoheronthatbasis.Mr.Levinedidnot believehecouldrecommendthegrievorforthepositionand,inthecircumstances,hisopinionwas notunreasonableordiscriminatory.However,itisclearthathedidnotrecommendherforthe positionbecauseofherhandicap.Therewasnoevidencethatheconsideredwhether,with accommodation,thepositioncouldhavebeenadaptedforher.Insteadofexplainingtoherandto Mr.Partridgeabouthisconcernsanddiscussingthepossibilityofaccommodatingthejob requirementstoherdisability,hesimplydismissedherrequest.Bydoingsoheputthegrievorat _adisadvantagebecauseofherhandicap. Somuchwashappeningatthistimethatthegrievorbegantofeelthatshewasbeingharassedonall fronts.Shewasdeniedtwopositionsbecauseofherhandicap.Shebecameawareofe-mailmemos thatseemedtoattackherbecauseofherhandicap.People,andMr.Levineinparticular,were presentingasupportiveandsympatheticfrontwhileconcealingamaliciousandunsupportive attitude.Shefoundoutthat Mr.Levinehadwrittenmemosaboutherthatindicatedhisfrustration andanger withherdemands.ShefoundoutthatMs.GreenhadbeenwritingmemostoMr.Levine aboutherthatwereinsultinganddemeaning.Sheknewthat Mr.Levinehadspecificallysaidhe wouldnothireheragainandyetreceivedaphonecallfromhimsuggestingthatsheapplyfora temporarysupervisoryposition.Sheperceivedthatphonecalltobeharassment.However,that phonecallmustbeconsideredinlightofthecircumstancesatthetime.Thegrievorhadfileda WDHPPcomplaintagainstMr.Levinecontainingeighteenallegationsofdiscriminationand harassment.Shehadalso,bythistime,filednumerousgrievanceswithsimilarallegations.When 99 Mr.Levinecalledher,hetestifiedhewasjustmakingsureshehadnogroundsforanothergrievance regardingdenialoftheposition.Iaccepthisexplanation.Idonotbelieve,giventheoutstanding allegationsagainsthim,thathewouldhaveintentionallyputhimselfinthepositionofbeing chargedwithadditionalallegationsby"settingherup".Idonotbelieveheintendedtoharassher. However,thisincidentindicatestheleveltowhichtheirrelationshiphaddeteriorated.Eachofthem weresomistrustfuloftheotherthateverythingtheydidwassuspect. Severaloftheoutstandinggrievancesdonot,ontheirface,involvetheapplication,administration orallegedviolationofanytermsofthecollectiveagreement.Theyareillustrativeofthegrievor's increasingsuspicionsthatshehadbecomethesubjectofaconcentratedcourseofharassmentand discriminationwithdisastrousconsequencestoherfuture. Forexample,grievance#.3allegesthatMr.Lafantasieharassedthegrievorbyintroducing· transcriptsoftheWDHPPinvestigationataStage2grievancemeeting.Thegrievorunderstoodthat anythingsaidforpurposesoftheWDHPPcomplaintwasnottobeusedforanyotherpurpose.She wasupsetandangrythat,withoutherknowledgeorconsent,theinformationsuppliedattheWDHPP investigationhadbecomepartofthegrievanceprocess.Evenifthegrievoriscorrectandassurances weregiventoherabouttheprivilegednatureoftheWDHPPinvestigation,thereisnoevidence beforemethatthedecisiontousethatinformationattheStage2meetingwasintendedtoharassher. Atmost,itwasabreachofanundertakingtotreatcertaininformationinacertainmanner.That breach,ifthatiswhatitwas,isnotaviolationofanyexpresstermofthecollectiveagreementand forthatreason,thegrievanceisdismissed. .'~. 100 Forthesamereasons,grievance#4isdismissed.Whetherornottheinformationgainedduringthe WDHPPcomplaintwasimproperlyusedatagrievancemeeting,thereisnoprovisionofthe collectiveagreementprohibitingitsuse.Neitheristhereanyevidencethatthedecisiontosupply theinformationto Mr.Lafantasiewasbasedonanyintentiontoharassthegrievor. Grievance#5allegesthatMr.LafantasiethreatenedthegrievorataStage2grievancemeeting.I havelistenedtoataperecordingoftheconversationand,basedonthatrecording,donotbelievethat Mr.Lafantasie'scommentsweremeantasathreat.Itistruethathesaid"Ifyouareinterestedin opportunitiesitwouldbeunfortunateifanydiscussionofjobopportunitiessuddenlycomestoa standstillbecauseweareinvolvedinanadversarialsituation".Inthegrievancethegrievoralleges thatMr.Lafantasiesaid"alldiscussion".Thetaperecordingprovidedtomewasverydifficultto understandandIcannotsaywithcertaintywhichversioniscorrect.Whateverversioniscorrect, thatstatementmustbeconsideredwithinthecontextofthemeeting.Therearetwoprimarypurposes .togrievancemeetings;namelytoattempttoresolvethematteror,failingthat,todiscovertherelative positionsofthepartiessoastoprepareforarbitration.Itiscommon,insettlementdiscussionofa jobpostinggrievance,tosuggestawithdrawalofthegrievanceinexchangeforanofferofanother position.Asettlementalmostalwaysrequiresacompromisebybothparties.Mr.Lafantasiewas attemptingtosettlethal'matterbydiscussingdevelopmentalopportunitiesingeneralandthe ) grievanceinparticular.Atthemeetinginquestion,thegrievorandherUnionStewardtookthe positionthattherecouldbenodiscussionofsettlementwithoutanadmissionfromtheEmployerthat thegrievorhadbeendiscriminatedagainst.Theywereadamantthat,withoutanadmissionofguilt, theywerenotpreparedtodiscusssettlement. ItwaswithinthatcontextthatMr.Lafantasiemade 101 hisremarkabouttheadversarialprocess.Itwas cleartomeafterlisteningtothetape,thathewas frustratedwiththegrievor'spositionandwastryingtopersuadehertoreconsider.Idonotbelieve ---hemeanthisremarkasathreatbutsimplyasastatementoffact.Aslongasshecontinuedto demandanadmissionofguilt,theEmployercouldmakenooffersofsettlement,whichprecluded anydiscussionoforoffersoffuturedevelopmentalopportunities.Thisgrievanceistherefore dismissed. Thenextgrievance,Exhibit #6,accusesMr.Levineofintroducingfalsedocumentationduringthe internalinvestigationofherWDHPPcomplaint.Whethertheinformationwasfalseornotis, .irrelevanttomyconsiderationsbecausetherehasbeennoviolationofthecollectiveagreement.The informationatissuewaspartoftheinternalinvestigationofacomplaintfiledinaccordancewiththe Employer'spolicyagainstdiscriminationandharassment.Anyexchangeofinformationwasdone pursuanttothatinvestigation.Thereisnoprovision inthe collectiveagreementthegrievorcanrely onashavingbeenviolated.IftheinformationgivenbyMr.Levineinrespondingtothese allegationswasindeedfalse,itisfortheinternalinvestigationteamtodeterminethetruth.-Itis not amatterforagrievanceunderthecollectiveagreementandthegrievanceisthereforedismissed. Grievance #8allegeslhatMr.Levinemadefalseandderogatorycommentsaboutthegrievorina writtenjobcompetitionchecklist.Thegrievorasksthatthechecklistbepurgedfromallofher files.Again,Ifindnoprovisionofthecollectiveagreementprohibitingthecompletionofa competitionreferencechecklistbyasupervisor.Thisdocumentisamanagementtoolutilizedby theEmployertoassistinitsselectionofcandidatesforjobcompetitions.Thepositionatissuewas 102 notsubjecttothepostingprovisionsofthecollectiveagreementandwasentirelyattheEmployer's discretion.IftheEmployerchoosestorelyontherecommendationsofitsmanagerialemployees indecidingwhoshouldbeofferedadevelopmentalopportunity,itisfreetodoso.Theallegation, inthiscase,isthatthestatementsinthereferencewerefalseandderogatory.Thecommentsmade inthereferencewere,forthemostpart,consistentwithwhatonewouldexpectfromasupervisor aboutanemployeeandwereconsistentwiththeviewsexpressedpreviouslyby Mr.Levineabout thegrievor.Eveniftheopinionsstatedwerefalse,asclaimedbythegrievor,theyarenota violationofthecollectiveagreementandthereforeoutsidemyjurisdiction. Grievance#9allegesthattheDeputyMinister,RosemaryProctor,harassedthegrievorby designatingMr.LafantasietoactasherappointeetoaStage2grievancemeetingwhensheknew oroughttohaveknownthatthegrievorhadtwooutstandinggrievancesagainsthimalleging harassment.ThecollectiveagreementdoesnotdictatewhotheEmployercanorshouldassignas itsdesigneeanymorethanitdictates totheUnionwhoitcandesignatetoaccompanyagrievorto ameeting.Thatisaninternalmattertobedeterminedbytheparties.Whileitmightnothavebeen thebestchoice,thefactofthematteristhattheDeputyMinister'srighttochoseherdesigneeis unfettered.Aswell,asidefromthegrievor'sassertionthattheDeputyMinister'schoicewasmeant asharassment,therewasnoevidencebeforemethatwoula~llowme tomakesuchadetermination. GiventhenumberofemployeesandthenumberofgrievancesfiledintheMinistry,itismorelikely thattheDeputyMinistermadeherselectionofherdesigneeinaccordancewith·herusualpractice withoutanyregardtoorknowledgeoftheissuesorthepartiesandfornootherreason.This grievanceisdismissed. 103 Thatbrings.ustogrievance#10whichallegesthatMr.Levineviolatedtherulesofprogressive disciplinebykeepingasecretfilethatthegrievorwasneveradvisedexistedandwasusedtoher detrimentattheWDHPPinvestigation.Itisthisfilethathascausedthemostdifficultyforthe grievorbecauseitcontainedmemosthatprovedtoherthattheEmployer,and Mr.Levinein particular,wereneversupportiveofher.and,infact,weresecretlyconspiringagainsther.Thisfile includedseveralmemosfrom Mr.LevinetoMs.BlackmoreorMs.RenwickthatwereMr.Levine's musingsonthegrievorandherneeds.Theywere,insomeinstances,histhoughtprocessesfor dealingwiththegrievorandtheproblemshebelievedshecreated. Mr.Levineinvariablydidthe rightthing.Theproblemisthatthese.memosshowhowunpreparedhewastodealwithan employeewiththemultitudeofproblemsthegrievorwasexperiencing.Evenwhenhedidtheright thing,likegrantingherrequestforleavesofabsencetoattendguidedogschool,hismemosshow thatheneverunderstoodthedutytoaccommodate.Whenthegrievoraskedfortimeofftoattend guidedogschool,hefeltthatthegrievorshouldbearsomeoftheresponsibilityfortheleaveby usinghervacation..Infact,heseemedtoresentthefactthatshedidnot.Healsofeltthat,sincethe useofaguidedoghadpersonalcomponent,theEmployershouldnothavetobearthefullcostof theleave.Whenhesoughtadvicefromhissuperiors,theresultwasdisappointingtosaytheleast. ThereisnoevidencethatMs.BlackmoreorMs.Renwickmadeanyefforttoexplainorenlighten Mr.Levineabouthisdutytoaccommodate.Ms.Blackmoretestifiedthatshe~pnsideredthe leaves tobeamatterofaccommodationbutthatisneverexpressedinhermemostoMr.Levine.Atnotime didanyoneexplaintoMr.Levinethathispersonalviewsofthegrievor'srequestwereinappropriate infactorimproperinlaw.Mr.Levineisa'youngmanwhohadneverhadtodealwiththecomplex issuespresentedbythegrievor.Hewasclearlyoverhishead. Itwouldappearhewasnever 104 adequatelytrainedinissuesofdisabilityandaccommodation.Asaresult,hedidnotrecognizethat thegrievor'srequestforthecourtdutyofficerpositionshouldhavebeenconsideredasan accommodationissue.Hebasedhisdecisiontodenytheleaveonoperationalrequirementsalone, whichwasimproper.Hesupportedthepurchaseofalargesumofmoneyforcomputerequipment butnevertookanystepstoinquireaboutthegrievor'suseofthatequipment.Heappearedtobe unawareofthegrievor'songoingdiscussionswithMs.McEvoyaboutherproblemsusingthe equipment.Infact,itwouldappearfromthelackofknowledgeaboutthegrievor'sproblemsthat hedidnotconsiderthecomputerequipmenttobehisresponsibilityatall.Asthegrievor's immediatesupervisor,heshouldhavemadeithisresponsibilitytoensurethatthegrievor'sneedto beaccommodatedwasbeingmetinallareas.Hisfailuretodosois,inmyopinion,directlydueto hislackofknowledgeofdisabilityandaccommodationissues. Thefileinquestionwasasecretfromthegrievor.However,asfarasIamaware,nothinginthat filewaseverusedfordisciplinarypurposes.Ithasbeenwellestablishedthatanemployerwho attemptstodisciplineanemployeebyrelyingondocumentationofactionthathasneverbeen broughttotheattentionoftheemployeedoessoatitsperil.Itisnotaviolationofthecollective agreementforanemployertomaintainanemployeefilepertainingtoongoingperformanceissues thatareneverintendedtobethesubjectofdiscipline.Intheinstantcase,Idonotbelievethefile wasintendedtoharassthegrievor.Inthefirstplace,shewasunawareofthefileandthereforecould nothavefeltharassedbyit.Aswell,Mr.Levineneverintendedthatthegrievorseethefile.Ifhe , wantedtoharassher,hewouldhaveusedthecontentsofthefiletodoso.Thegrievanceis dismissedinsofarasitallegesaviolationofnaturaljusticeandharassment. -------------, ---------------------- 105 The"secret'filedoeshowevergiveussomeinsightintoMr.Levine'sthinking.Itindicatesclearly that,atsomepoint,Mr.Levinedidbegintodiscriminateagainstthegrievornotthroughmalicebut throughignoranceandinexperience.Asthegrievor'sneedsgrew,Mr.Levinebecamemoreand morefrustratedwiththemandwithherattitudeaboutthem.Shewassecureintheknowledgethat shewaslegallyentitledtobeaccommodated.WhenMr.Levinewasindecisiveorunsure,shemade itcleartohimofherrightsandherintentiontoenforcethemoneway.Asherneedsgrew,sodid herinabilitytoperformherduties.IacceptMr.Levine'sevidenceinthisregard.Itishardto imaginehowthegrievorcouldhavecontinuedtohandleafullworkloadinhercondition.Therewas noevidencethatherworkloadwaseverreducedtoaccommodatehercondition.Indeed,thegrievor acknowledgedthatshewashavingtroubledoingherworkbutblameditonherproblemswiththe computer..Mr.Levinebegantolosehissympathyforthegrievorandbelievedshewasusingher disabilitytoobtainpromotionsshewouldotherwisenotbeentitledto.Hisattitudetowardsthe grievorledMs.Greentobelievethathermemosaboutthegrievorwouldbeacceptable.WhileMr. Levinetestifiedthathedidnotaskforthoseplemosand,infact,askedMs.Greentostopsending them,theycontinuedforatleastsixmonths.HedidnothingtoeducateMs.Greenaboutthe disabilityoraccommodationissues.Asasupervisor,itwashisresponsibilitytoensurethatthe peoplehesupervisedwerefamiliarwithandunderstandingabouttheseissues.Hisfailuretodeal withMs.GreenandherattitudetowardsthegrievorarefurtherexamplesofhiS-discriminatory attitudeandhisfailuretoaccommodate.Thefullrangeofhisresponsibilitytoaccommodate includednotonlymakingphysicalalterationstothegrievor'sworkplacebutalsoensuringthe understandingandcooperationofherco-workers. ".'.,:.; 106 WhilethegrievancesaboutMr.Levine's"secret"file,thereferencechecklistandtheinternal investigationhavebeendismissedtheactionsgivingrisetothegrievancesdosupportthegrievor's allegationsofdiscrimination.Hispersonalmemosaboutthegrievorspeakforthemselves.They areclearproofofhisfrustrationwithandeventualantipathytowardsthegrievor.Whilesomeof thosefeelingswerenodoubtpersonal,theyaffectedhisprofessionalconducttowardsthegrievor. Everydecisionhemadeaboutthegrievorwastaintedbyhisattitudetowardsherandherdisability. Hecommentedonherfrequentabsences,herinabilitytoperformherduties,herlackoffocusand dedicationandherinabilitytoacceptcriticism.Whiletheymayhavebeenlegitimateobservations theywere,nevertheless,asaresultofherdisability.Heacknowledgedthatwhenheadvisedherthat, ifherhealthimproved,hewouldconsiderherforthecourtdutypositionandinthereferencecheck .list.Andyet,thosecriticismscreatedbarriersforthegrievorthatdidnotexistforother.employees withoutdisabilities.Idonotbelieve Mr.Levineintentionallydiscriminatedagainstthegrievor. Nevertheless,hedidandthegrievorisentitledtoadeclarationtothateffect. Thelastgrievancefiledclaimsaviolationofnaturaljusticethattheseproceedinghavetakensuch alongtimetoprocess.WhileIunderstandthegrievor'sfrustrationwiththeprocess,thefactisthat grievancesoftentakealongtimetobeheardanddecided.Sheaskedthatshereceiveaspeedyand fairresolutiontohergrievances.WhileIcannotcommentonthetimeittooktoactuallybeginthe hearings,Icanapologizeforthedelaysinherentinthesystem. Thegrievorisentitledtoadeclarationthatgrievance#1allegingdiscriminationandafailureto accommodateisallowedasisgrievance#2allegingdiscriminationindenyingthecourtdutyofficer _.! 107 positiontothegrievor.Aswell,sheisentitledtoadeclarationthatMr.Levinediscriminated againstheronthebasisofherhandicap. REMEDY Fashioningaremedytoaddresstheseviolationsisproblematic.Asstatedpreviously,thegrievor's healthhasdeterioratedsincethegrievanceswerefiledandsincethehearing.AtthistimeIdoubt thatsheisinapositiontoreturntoworkimmediately.Evenifshewere,itisdifficultformeto knowwhatshewillneedinthewayofaccommodationwhenshedoesreturn.It wouldappear,from theevidence,thatthegrievorhasbeensuppliedwithalloftheequipmentavailabletoassistherin performingherduties.Ataminimumshewillrequireextensivetrainingonthecomputer.Sheis entitledtowhatevertrainingisnecessaryto.allowhertoperformherdutiestotheextentthatthe technologywillallow.Itmightbethat,evenifsheisabletousethecomputertoitsfullestextent, itwillnotbeenough.Thatdeterminationwillhavetobemadeatalaterdate.Sheisalsoentitled tobesuppliedwithanyadditionalequipmentthatmayhavebeendevelopedintheintervalifitis determinedthatitwillbeofassistancetoher.Anewneedsassessmentshouldbedoneforthe grievortoensurethatacomprehensiveandrealisticaccommodationcanbedesignedtoremoveany barrierstothegrievoi"sabilitytoperformherdutiesasaP02. Anotherclearexampleofthefailuretoaccommodateinvolvesthedenialofthecourtdutyofficer position.Thegrievorhasaskedthatshebeawardedtheposition.Again,giventhelengthoftime , thathaselapsedsincethegrievancewasfiledandthisdecision,Iamunabletodoso.Whenthe grievorisable-toreturntoherpositionofP02,theEmployershallreviewthegrievor'ssituationand, 108 ifthesamereasonsexisttoawardherthepositionasshestatedatthehearing,sheshouldbeplaced inthepositionassoonasispractical. Thatleavestheissueofdiscrimination.Mr.Levinewasnotthegrievor'ssupervisoratthetimeof thehearing.Hepresentpositionis,asIunderstand,temporaryinnatureandIassumehewillbe returningtohisformerpositionatsometime.It isclearthatwhateverpositionheholds,he continuestobelackingin·afundamentalunderstandingofdiscriminationandthedutyto accommodate.Tobefairto him,hereceivedlittleassistancefromhissupervisors.Ms.Renwick's memoofthe"Kathiaftermath"indicateswhy.Thetitleofthememoandthequestionsregarding concernsofallergicreactionsanddogbitesshowherlackofunderstandingoftheissues.Ashis supervisor,.shenot.onlydidnotassistthegrievorbutencouragedhiminhisownattitude.Ms. Blackmorestatedthatsheapprovedtheleaveofabsenceforguidedogtrainingasanaccommodation issue.Yet,atnotimeinhermemosorinMr.Levine'sevidencedidtheword"accommodation" arise.Ifindeedshedidconsiderthedutytoaccommodateinherdeliberationsregardingtheleave, sheneveradvisedMr.Levine.Again,asahumanresourceconsultant,sheshouldhavemadeitclear .tohimthat,irrespectiveofwhattheycharacterizedtheleave,itwastheirdutytoapproveit.Instead sheencouragedhiminhiscommentsaboutvacationandpersonal.use. Inthoserespects,theEmployerhasshownaglaringneedforeducationandinstructionontheissues ofdisabilityandthedutytoaccommodate.Mr.Levine,Ms.BlackmoreandMs.Renwickaretobe providedwithcounsellingandinstructiononthesematterssothat,whenthegrievorreturnstowork, theyareinabetterpositiontodealwithher-concernsandtheconcernsofotheremployeeswith __i r\ ~- I. . ~ 109 disabilities.Theactualcounsellingandinstructionmustbecomprehensiveenoughtoprovidethem withanunderstandingnotonlyoftheirlegalresponsibilitiesbutalsoofthepersonalandprofessional commitmentnecessarytoprovideaworkplacefreefromdiscrimination.TheEmployerandthe Unionshouldattempttoagreeontheappropriateinstruction.Iftheyareunabletoagree,Iwill remainseizedoftheissueaswellasanyotherdifficultiesencounteredintheimplementationofthe awardgenerally. Signedthis6thdayofNovember,1997. orettaMikus,Vice-Chair