HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-3000.Crossfield.14-08-14 DecisionCrown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB#2013-3000, 2013-3657
UNION#2013-0340-0048, 2013-0340-0060
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Crossfield) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Finance) Employer
BEFORE Dan Harris Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Laura Johnson
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Roslyn Baichoo
Ministry of Government Services
Legal Services Branch
Counsel
HEARING June 26, 2014
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The Union has filed two grievances on behalf of the grievor, Sandra Crossfield.
The first grievance came about as a result of the grievor having run a "water club"
on behalf of her fellow employees in which she supplied bottled water for a fee.
Concerns were raised about a purported misappropriation of funds. This led to the
grievor being suspended with pay while the employer investigated. That
suspension lasted 20 months. When the grievor returned to work she received a
letter of counsel. The union alleges that the lengthy suspension had a severe effect
on the grievor's health, both mental and physical. This led to the first grievance,
which was referred to the Board and scheduled for hearing before a different
Vice-Chair on July 23, 2014.
[2] When the grievor returned to work from her suspension, she was declared surplus.
Under the surplusing provisions of the collective agreement, the grievor had a
number of options from which she could elect. Her election was to be made by
completing a form. There may be a dispute about whether she was provided with
the form or had to obtain it herself. She gave the form to the employer two weeks
after the deadline within which the form was to have been returned. The employer
refused to honor the choices she had made on the form. The union has filed a
grievance on her behalf, which was scheduled for hearing before me on June 26,
2014. The union alleges that the grievor was unable to appreciate the importance of
returning the form in a timely fashion because of the effects on her of the lengthy
suspension.
- 3 -
[3] On June 26, 2014 the union brought an application to consolidate the two
grievances. The employer resisted that application, primarily on the basis that it had
not received particulars of the allegations, which it had requested as early as April
22, 2014 from a different OPSEU representative than counsel before me on this
consolidation application. It said that OPSEU’s submissions made before me, as to
the overlap in the facts between the two grievances, was the first detailed
explanation provided to it by the union.
[4] Having heard the submissions of the parties, it is my view that there is a sufficient
commonality in the facts and legal questions that the two grievances should be
heard together. One example is that the union has indicated that it will be calling
medical evidence dealing with the grievor's mental and physical health arising
from the lengthy suspension, and that such evidence would have been required in
each hearing had the two hearings proceeded independently. Hearing the
grievances together will avoid inconsistent findings of fact, provide savings and
efficiencies procedurally and would not occasion any prejudice to the parties. As
the union bears the onus on both grievances, it will proceed first on all issues.
[5] I must conclude by saying that had the union responded to the employer's request
for particulars, made in April 2014, the need to hear this application may have
been avoided.
[6] The union is to provide full particulars of the two grievances to the employer,
following which the parties are to produce to each other all arguably relevant
- 4 -
documents. This matter is to be scheduled for hearing by the Registrar, following
which the parties are to agree on a schedule for the provision of particulars and
production. If there is any dispute as to the requirements of or fulfillment of these
orders of the Board, the matter may be scheduled for a further appearance to resolve
the same.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 14th day of August 2014.
Dan Harris, Vice-Chair