Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-3579.Martin et al.15-08-12 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#2013-3579 UNION#2014-0220-0002 Additional grievors in Appendix “A” IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Martin et al) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community and Social Services) Employer BEFORE Ian Anderson Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION David Wright Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Counsel FOR THE EMPLOYER Felix Lau Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel HEARING July 16, 2015 - 2 - Decision [1] These grievances relate to the workload of Caseworkers employed by the Ministry of Community and Social Services to handle Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”) files. It is alleged that in imposing this workload the Ministry is in breach of Article 9 of the collective agreement (the health and safety provision). [2] The Ministry takes the position that the grievances do not make out a prima facie case for a breach of the collective agreement, and brought a preliminary motion to that effect. For the purposes of hearing that motion, the parties agreed that the Union would file a Statement of Particulars with respect to “representative grievors”, selected by the Union, in various categories. [3] There is little disagreement between the parties as to the principles applicable to a motion alleging the particulars of a grievance fail to make out a prima facie case. In order to succeed, the moving party, in this case the Ministry, must establish that the “facts asserted in support of a grievance, if accepted as true, are not capable of establishing the elements necessary to substantiate the violation alleged”: Couture, 2011 CanLII 100922 (ON GSB), (Dissanayake). Arguments or conclusions do not constitute allegations of fact. Accordingly, they need not be accepted as true for the purposes of a no prima facie case motion. [4] The Ministry argues that “claims” and statements of “evidence” also do not constitute allegations of fact for the purposes of a no prima facie case motion, citing Seguin, 2012 CanLII 6203 (ON GSB) (Briggs) at para. 38 and Belanger, 2006 CanLII 42772 (ON GSB) (Harris) at p. 10 respectively. With respect, this argument is based on a misreading of these cases. In Seguin, the “claim” in question was a legal conclusion (that the employer had acted in an arbitrary manner) and devoid of particulars (see para. 36). At para. 38, the Board commented that its inclusion amongst other particularized facts did not transform it into a fact. In Belanger, the description of the proposed evidence listed topic areas but was devoid of any particulars: see paragraph 6 on page 9. It was this “evidence” the Board described as not constituting “particulars” of the union’s case at page 10. In my view, therefore, nothing is gained by characterizing a statement as a “claim” or “evidence”. What matters is whether the statement in question constitutes an assertion of a fact. [5] The Union notes that in Evangelista, 2011 CanLII 41847 (ON GSB) (Harris) the Board stated that it was not appropriate to weigh the quality of the proposed evidence in determining whether there was a prima facie case: see para. 11. The Union asserts that as a result, for example, I would be required to accept as true the assertion that the moon is made of blue cheese. With respect, I disagree. In Evangelista, the proposed evidence was capable of belief. That is not the case with the Union’s hypothetical example. As I noted in Bharti, 2015 CanLII 19330 (ON GSB) at para. 10: - 3 - In Nash v. Ontario (1995), 1995 CanLII 2934 (ON CA), 27 O.R (3d) 1 the Ontario Court of Appeal held that for the purposes of determining whether or not a plaintiff’s pleadings made out a prima facie case, alleged facts that were patently ridiculous or incapable of proof need not be accepted as true. [6] The question is whether the asserted facts, taken as a whole, constitute particulars capable of supporting the violation of the collective agreement alleged. As the Union argues, the words “capable of supporting the violation” are of some significance. What matters for the purposes of the no prima facie case motion is whether the party responding to the motion, in this case the Union, has articulated a legal theory which, on the facts it has particularized, could reasonably support a conclusion that there is a violation of the collective agreement. Therefore, the particulars are to be assessed against the responding party’s theory of the case. Whether that theory is correct need not be determined at this stage in the proceedings. Provided the responding party’s theory is reasonable and it has provided particulars which, if true, would result in a finding of a breach on the application of that theory, the motion should be dismissed. [7] In this case, simply stated, the legal issue is when workload can give rise to a breach of Article 9, the health and safety provision of the collective agreement. This is not a new issue. The parties agree that in certain circumstances an excessive workload can give rise to a breach of Article 9. To some extent they disagree, however, on what the necessary circumstances are. There is no suggestion, however that the Union’s theory with respect to those circumstances is not reasonable and for the purposes of this motion I accept it as correct. [8] The Union’s particulars consist of 95 paragraphs. Broadly stated, the Union’s particulars allege that as a result of a series of changes implemented by the Ministry since 2009 (notably a reorganization of the ODSP known as “Modernization”, commenced in 2009; the introduction of the Active Case Management Strategic Framework (the “Framework”) in 2011; and, most recently, the implementation of a new information management system called the Social Assistance Management System (“SAMS”) in 2014), the workload of Caseworkers has increased to the point that it has become so excessive as to be psychologically stressful. In addition, the particulars allege that SAMS has significantly increased the number of key strokes and mouse work required of Caseworkers in the performance of their duties. It is alleged that this has led to an increase in physical injuries to Caseworkers. It is alleged that as a result the workload of Caseworkers has caused recognizable medical problems to some Caseworkers and that it is reasonably foreseeable that it will cause recognizable medical problems to other Caseworkers. [9] On the basis of these particulars, the Union argues that the Ministry is imposing a real and substantial risk of harm on the Caseworkers. Given that, the Union argues the onus switches to the Ministry to justify the reasonableness and necessity of imposing that risk, including that it is inherent to the position of Caseworker. The Union argues that it need not show the opposite for the purposes of establishing a prima facie case. In any event, the Union notes that its - 4 - particulars include a reference to the experience of caseworkers employed to administer the Ontario Works program. The Union alleges that those caseworkers have less than one half the case load of the Caseworkers who administer the ODSP and that those caseworkers have received much greater support throughout the various changes to the programs with the result that their workload is not excessive. The Union argues this demonstrates that it is neither reasonable nor necessary to impose the existing workloads on the Caseworkers who administer the ODSP. In the result, the Union argues that in imposing this workload on the Caseworkers, the Ministry is failing to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of the Caseworkers. Accordingly, the Union argues that the Ministry is in breach of Article 9 of the Collective Agreement (the health and safety provision). [10] The Ministry argues that the Union’s particulars fail to allege a health effect in relation to two groups of the grievances and that therefore they cannot succeed. I disagree. In its particulars, the Union has alleged that it is reasonably foreseeable that recognizable health problems will be caused for these groups of grievors. For the purposes of this motion, I accept this allegation as true. On the Union’s theory of the case, this would give rise to a breach of Article 9. [11] The Ministry argues that the Union’s particulars fail to establish that the Caseworkers have an excessive workload because they fail to establish a baseline against which additional work could be assessed. I disagree. For example, the Union’s particulars assert a significant increase in workload in comparison to the workload established by Modernization. [12] The Ministry argues that the Union’s assertion that the workloads are excessive is a “conclusion” or a “claim”. I agree that it is a conclusion. It is one, however, which is capable of being reached on the other particulars asserted by the Union with respect to the increase in workload over that established by Modernization. [13] The Ministry argues that paragraph 26 constitutes a statement of proposed evidence and therefore cannot be considered for the purposes of the prima facie motion. That paragraph reads: Excessive workloads, and stress related with such workloads, are well known to contribute to a series of health problems. The Union reserves the right to call expert evidence to establish the link. For reasons stated above, the use of the word “evidence” in this paragraph is irrelevant. The first sentence is an assertion of fact forming part of the particulars of the Union’s case. The second sentence is at worst anticipatory: should expert evidence be required on this fact, the Union reserves the right to call it. [14] The Ministry argues that while paragraphs 5 to 25 constitute allegations of fact, they do not establish a breach of Article 9 of the collective agreement. I disagree with the premise of this argument. As argued by the Union, those paragraphs cannot be viewed in isolation. They describe the increase in workload which the - 5 - Union asserts took place from the introduction of Modernization through to the implementation of the Framework. They relate directly to the Union’s theory that the workload is excessive. [15] More generally the Ministry disagrees that the workload of the Caseworkers is excessive. However, for the purposes of this motion I am required to assume that the facts particularized by the Union are true. I am unable to say that those facts are incapable of supporting the conclusion that the workload is excessive. The Ministry argues that in any event the workload and other stresses identified by the Union are inherent to the position of Caseworker and that any risk of harm is both reasonable and necessary. That may prove to be the case on the evidence. However for the purposes of this motion I must treat the Union’s particulars as true. Leaving aside the Union’s argument that the onus is on the Ministry to prove that the risk is reasonable and necessary, the Union’s particulars with respect to the different experience of the Ontario Works caseworkers are capable of supporting the conclusion that the workload and stresses faced by the ODSP Caseworkers are neither reasonable nor necessary. More generally, the Union’s particulars, if assumed to be true, are capable of supporting the conclusion that there has been a breach of Article 9. Whether the Union will be able to prove those facts and whether I will reach the same conclusion having heard all the evidence and full argument is another matter altogether. [16] For all of the foregoing reasons, the Ministry’s motion that the Union has failed to plead a prima facie case is dismissed. [17] The parties are directed to contact the Registrar to schedule continuation dates in this matter. Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 12th day of August 2015. Ian Anderson, Vice-Chair - 6 - Appendix A GSB Number Grievor Name Union File Number 2013-3581 Van Zon, Stephanie 2014-0220-0004 2013-3977 Hobbs, Lisa 2014-0368-0051 2013-3978 Hendry, Janice 2014-0368-0050 2013-3979 Ricketts, Janet 2014-0368-0015 2013-3980 Fox, Ashly 2014-0368-0016 2013-3981 King, Donna 2014-0368-0017 2013-3982 McQuaid, Gloria 2014-0368-0018 2013-3983 Reparon, Luanne 2014-0368-0019 2013-3984 Furness, Brandy 2014-0368-0020 2013-4082 Seidel, Sandra et al 2014-0102-0007 2013-4215 Archambault, Deborah 2014-0601-0003 2013-4216 Craig-Ricard, Sheila 2014-0601-0004 2013-4217 Lederer, Robert 2014-0601-0005 2013-4218 Kucher, Issac 2014-0601-0006 2013-4219 Labelle, Natalie 2014-0601-0007 2013-4220 Forster, Jane 2014-0601-0008 2013-4221 Gilbert, Sharon 2014-0601-0009 2013-4222 Dyment, Sharon 2014-0601-0010 2013-4223 Mannarino, Victor 2014-0601-0011 2013-4224 Sharpe, Marietta 2014-0601-0012 2013-4225 Kearns, Kathleen 2014-0601-0013 2013-4226 Gallant, Lise 2014-0601-0014 2013-4227 Rooley, Shelley 2014-0601-0015 2013-4228 Poitras, Guylaine 2014-0601-0016 2013-4365 McKean, Barbara 2014-0368-0041 2013-4366 Paquin Belle-Isle, Guy 2014-0426-0009 2013-4367 Dicaire, Mario 2014-0426-0010 2014-0074 Sikora, Jessica 2014-0586-0003 2014-0075 Knight, Derek 2014-0586-0004 2014-0076 Kassam, Mansoor 2014-0586-0005 2014-0077 Damonze, Chantal 2014-0586-0006 2014-0078 Treganowan, Christine 2014-0586-0007 2014-0079 Cheung, Ching Lam Joyce 2014-0586-0008 2014-0080 McColman, Rhona 2014-0586-0009 2014-0121 Lord, Lorraine 2014-0586-0010 2014-0122 Signorile, Michelle 2014-0586-0011 2014-0123 Sparks, Timothy 2014-0586-0012 2014-0124 Du, Julie 2014-0586-0013 2014-0126 Mirigliani, Rosemary 2014-0586-0015 2014-0127 Dunn, Ed 2014-0586-0016 2014-0128 Salvagna, Carmelo 2014-0586-0017 2014-0129 Watkins, Pamela 2014-0586-0018 2014-0130 Passa, Antonella 2014-0586-0019 2014-0131 Mancini-Canale, Rosanna 2014-0586-0020 - 7 - GSB Number Grievor Name Union File Number 2014-0132 Dileo, Alayne 2014-0586-0021 2014-0133 Strong, Ron 2014-0586-0022 2014-0134 Martin, Debra 2014-0586-0023 2014-0135 Steenson, Tom 2014-0586-0024 2014-0136 Melicano, Dawn 2014-0586-0025 2014-0137 Bernardo, Barry 2014-0586-0026 2014-0138 Colasante, Teresa 2014-0586-0027 2014-0139 Mendez, Melinda 2014-0586-0028 2014-0140 Chu, Hung-Cheung 2014-0586-0029 2014-0141 McBride, Julie 2014-0586-0030 2014-0142 Pszczolkowski, Alicia 2014-0586-0031 2014-0143 Villamayor, Patricia 2014-0586-0032 2014-0144 Vassell, Pauline 2014-0586-0033 2014-0145 Amos, Jeffrey 2014-0586-0034 2014-0146 Weinberg, Risa 2014-0586-0035 2014-0147 Hwang, Daniel 2014-0586-0037 2014-0148 Manful, Daniel 2014-0586-0038 2014-0149 Dabirian, Marsha 2014-0586-0039 2014-0150 D'Souza, Angela 2014-0586-0041 2014-0173 Peneder-Binks, Gisele 2014-0586-0036 2014-0174 Flowers-Villegas, Michelle 2014-0586-0040 2014-0176 Marcoux, Shantelle 2014-0586-0043 2014-0179 Kaye-Mitchell, Roxanne 2014-0586-0047 2014-0181 Mawani, Haseena 2014-0586-0050 2014-0182 Morgan, Easton 2014-0586-0053 2014-0183 Catsanos, Catherine 2014-0586-0054 2014-0184 Morano, Silvana 2014-0586-0055 2014-0185 Jackson, Yeolanda 2014-0586-0056 2014-0186 Gavieres, Yvonne 2014-0586-0058 2014-0206 Fajardo, Noel 2014-0586-0059 2014-0207 Lei, Hong 2014-0586-0060 2014-0208 Georges, Nadia 2014-0586-0061 2014-0209 Khera, Patti 2014-0586-0062 2014-0210 Lesnik, Stephanie 2014-0586-0063 2014-0211 Kraakman, Cindy 2014-0586-0064 2014-0212 Reyes, Geraldine 2014-0586-0065 2014-0213 Rahaman, Abdool 2014-0586-0066 2014-0214 Guya, Maria 2014-0586-0067 2014-0215 Kong, Phillip 2014-0586-0068 2014-0216 Douglas, Andy 2014-0586-0070 2014-0217 Bennett, Tara 2014-0586-0071 2014-0218 Abraham, Anthony 2014-0586-0073 2014-0219 Teemul, Dayanand 2014-0586-0074 2014-0220 Juan, Marci 2014-0586-0075 2014-0221 Francis, Chantale 2014-0586-0076 2014-0222 Hill, Janice 2014-0586-0077 - 8 - GSB Number Grievor Name Union File Number 2014-0223 Fic, Monica 2014-0586-0078 2014-0224 Ricardo, Elaine 2014-0586-0079 2014-0225 Chan, Karen 2014-0586-0080 2014-0226 Prasad, Nalini 2014-0586-0081 2014-0227 Visram, Yasmin 2014-0586-0083 2014-0228 Alexander, Gerald 2014-0586-0085 2014-0229 Langevine-Hinds, Joanne 2014-0586-0086 2014-0230 MacLean, Sheryl 2014-0586-0087 2014-0231 Walsh, John 2014-0586-0089 2014-0232 Ferguson, Claudette 2014-0586-0090 2014-0233 Nirmalan, Saru 2014-0586-0092 2014-0234 Haye, Hyacinth 2014-0586-0093 2014-0235 Thandacheri, Sue 2014-0586-0094 2014-0236 Gordon, Karen 2014-0586-0095 2014-0237 Hopkins, Deborah 2014-0586-0096 2014-0238 Amante, Raymond 2014-0586-0097 2014-0239 Kingdon, Michael 2014-0586-0098 2014-0240 Gallo, Mary 2014-0586-0101 2014-0241 Dinicolo, Pamela 2014-0586-0102 2014-0242 Ali, Shameeza 2014-0586-0103 2014-0243 Wrzal-Kosowski, Margaret 2014-0586-0104 2014-0244 Harrison, John 2014-0586-0105 2014-0245 Graham, Jermaine 2014-0586-0106 2014-0255 Persad, Vishnu 2014-0586-0107 2014-0256 Hart, Gabriella 2014-0586-0108 2014-0302 Mann, Tina 2014-0586-0044 2014-0303 Yao, Susan 2014-0586-0049 2014-0304 Assadourian, Hristo 2014-0586-0051 2014-0305 Shirley, Evadne 2014-0586-0052 2014-0306 Caton, Lindsay 2014-0586-0057 2014-0307 Narayan, Usha 2014-0586-0069 2014-0308 Yee, Jose 2014-0586-0072 2014-0309 Irani, Mabel 2014-0586-0082 2014-0310 Marshall, Sheila 2014-0586-0084 2014-0311 Domingue, Kathryn 2014-0586-0088 2014-0312 Fox, Evelyn 2014-0586-0091 2014-0313 Pagniello, Tony 2014-0586-0099 2014-0315 Latour, Kathy 2014-0586-0109 2014-1013 Treidlinger, Ben 2014-0449-0006 2014-3103 Ali, Narissa 2014-0586-0113 2014-3104 Charles, Jillian 2014-0586-0114 2014-3105 Cronheimer, Jennifer 2014-0586-0115 2014-3106 Lascano, Cristina 2014-0586-0116 2014-3107 Marin, Maria 2014-0586-0117 2014-3108 Pantzoures, Mary 2014-0586-0118 2014-3109 Perez, Cintia 2014-0586-0119 - 9 - GSB Number Grievor Name Union File Number 2014-3110 Scott, Lynda 2014-0586-0120 2014-3259 Kendell, Lyn 2014-0310-0043 2014-3260 Hord, Ken 2014-0310-0044 2014-3261 Boon, Susan 2014-0310-0045 2014-3262 Broadworth, Ryan 2014-0310-0046 2014-3263 Bruyns, David 2014-0310-0047 2014-3264 Daly, Amanda 2014-0310-0048 2014-3265 Daly, Janice 2014-0310-0049 2014-3266 Erazo, Liliana 2014-0310-0050 2014-3267 Gaudet, Line 2014-0310-0051 2014-3268 Gravill, Brent 2014-0310-0052 2014-3269 Gimera, Susan 2014-0310-0053 2014-3270 Harding, Rosemary 2014-0310-0054 2014-3271 Honigan, Carlene 2014-0310-0055 2014-3272 Khawaja, Shagufta 2014-0310-0056 2014-3273 Lanois, Ashley 2014-0310-0057 2014-3274 McDonald, Kathy 2014-0310-0058 2014-3275 Price-Morris, Sondra 2014-0310-0059 2014-3276 Rasmussen, Meagan 2014-0310-0060 2014-3277 Rosher, Carol 2014-0310-0061 2014-3278 Taylor, Kelly 2014-0310-0062 2014-3279 Tuck, Cynthia 2014-0310-0063 2014-3280 Turner-Clark, Janice 2014-0310-0064 2014-3281 Vander Kooij, Lisa 2014-0310-0065 2014-3282 White, Kathy 2014-0310-0066 2014-3283 Woodhouse, Ryan 2014-0310-0067 2014-3506 Boodlal, Kay et al 2014-0222-0003 2014-3507 Botelho, Stephen 2014-0222-0004 2014-3508 Bywater, Maryann 2014-0222-0005 2014-3509 Clarke, Alicia 2014-0222-0006 2014-3510 Dunne, Bernice 2014-0222-0007 2014-3511 Geminiuc, Mimi 2014-0222-0008 2014-3512 Lavigne, Pauline 2014-0222-0009 2014-3513 Maiuri, Josephine 2014-0222-0010 2014-3514 Melanson, Dara 2014-0222-0011 2014-3515 Milne, Joanne 2014-0222-0012 2014-3516 Miles, Susan 2014-0222-0013 2014-3517 Montoya, Raquel 2014-0222-0014 2014-3518 Pampano, Debra 2014-0222-0015 2014-3519 Ruppert, Susan 2014-0222-0016 2014-3520 Theriault, Sylvie 2014-0222-0017 2014-3521 Zikos, Angela 2014-0222-0018 2014-3626 Union 2014-0999-0138 2014-3734 Hayes-Wright, Cindy et al 2014-0308-0012 2014-3735 Tatton, Betty et al 2014-0455-0016 2014-3789 Hoffman, Lanna 2014-0447-0005 - 10 - GSB Number Grievor Name Union File Number 2014-3839 Williams, Sharon et al 2014-0222-0020 2014-3932 Quackenbush, Beverly et al 2014-0123-0009 2014-4221 Chevrier, Kerri et al 2014-0615-0008 2014-4486 Cousineau, Patrice et al 2014-0426-0030 2014-4487 Dicaire, Mario 2014-0426-0031 2014-4488 Girard, Carmen 2014-0426-0032 2014-4489 L'Herault, Roxanne 2014-0426-0033 2014-4490 Martens, Ginette 2014-0426-0034 2014-4491 Nadon, Melissa 2014-0426-0035 2014-4492 Paquin Belle-Isle, Guy 2014-0426-0036 2014-4503 Haukins, Heather et al 2015-0368-0029 2014-4657 Delwo, Diane et al 2015-0615-0001 2014-4658 Hogan, Giselle 2015-0615-0002 2014-4659 Kutschke, Gail 2015-0615-0003 2015-0387 Muir, Janice 2015-0368-0132 2015-1258 King, Donna 2015-0368-0030 2015-1259 McKean, Barbara 2015-0368-0031 2015-1260 Reparon, Luanne 2015-0368-0032 2015-1261 Muir, Janice 2015-0368-0033 2015-1262 Furness, Brandy 2015-0368-0034 2015-1263 Hobbs, Lisa 2015-0368-0035 2015-1264 Tapp, Diane 2015-0368-0036 2015-1265 Richardson, Nicole 2015-0368-0037 2015-1266 Koren, Dawn 2015-0368-0038 2015-1267 Fox, Ashly 2015-0368-0049