Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-0612.Harding et al.14-10-30 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#2013-0612, 2013-0613, 2013-0614, 2013-0615, 2013-0616, 2013-0682, 2013-2932, 2013-2933, 2013-2934, 2013-2935, 2014-1116, 2014-1118 UNION#2013-0340-0009, 2013-0340-0010, 2013-0340-0011, 2013-0340-0012, 2013-0340-0013, 2013-0340-0014, 2013-0340-0051, 2013-0340-0052, 2013-0340-0053, 2013-0340-0054, 2014-0340-0003, 2014-0340-0005 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Harding et al) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Finance) Employer BEFORE Barry Stephens Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION Lesley Gilchrist Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer FOR THE EMPLOYER Omar Shahab Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel HEARING September 11, 2014 - 2 - Decision [1] This case involves six discipline grievances as well as a number of countervailing allegations of harassment and discrimination against the employer. This decision deals with the employer’s preliminary motion asking that I dismiss the harassment and discrimination grievances on the basis that there is no prima facie case. [2] In those cases where an adjudicator decides to dismiss a motion of no prima facie case any comments about the evidence and issues in the case should be kept at a minimum in order to avoid providing any information that may give advantage to one party or the other. The brevity of this decision is an application of that rule. [3] The employer’s argument focused on the extent to which the grievances relate to various letters written to the grievors about conforming with an order. The union alleged that the letters in question were part of an overall series of events that must be viewed in context. [4] After carefully considering the submissions of the parties, it is my view that the employer’s preliminary motion should be dismissed. Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 30th day of October 2014. Barry Stephens, Vice-Chair