The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-1870.Desi.91-03-11 ONrARIO EMPLOY£$ OE LA CO(JFIONNE Ct~O WN EMPL 0 YEE$ DE L 'ON TA RiO GRIEVANCE C,ONINIISSlON DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS $'I'${EET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO. ONTARfO. MSG IZ8 TELEPIWONE/TEL~PHONE: f,~) 326-~388 TSO, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTAR/OJ. USG IZ8 FAC$1MIILE/T~'~CO~iE : ~4 ;6) 326- ~396 1870/90 IN THE. MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAININ~ ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (Desi) ~rievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Natural Resources) Employer BEFORE: J. Samuels Vice-Chairperson P. Klym Member D. Walkinshaw Member FOR THE D. Wright ~RIEVOR Counsel Ryder, Whitaker, Wright & Chapman Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE R. Filion EMPLOYER Counsel Winkler, Filion & Wakely Barristers & Solicitors HEARINg: Febz~/ary 28, 1991 In this award, we will record the proceedings of a hearing, at the end of which the grievor withdrew her grievance. In our view, it is desirable that there be such a record, though we make no findings of fact, and come to no conclusions of law. On September 19, 1990, Ms. Desi., a revenue: clerk employed by the Ministry of Natural Resources, filed the grievance before us, alleging that her managers had violated the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act by treating her with unjust discrimination and had also violated Article 18.1 of the Collective Agreement. She requested as a remedy that her managers cease and desist this haras;sment immediately and that the Employer comply with the Act and Article 18.1 of the Collective Agreement, and that the Employer stop singling her out for special treatment and treat her with the same courtesy and respect as the rest of the employees. This was the second grievance alleging precisely the same violations and requesting the same remedial action. Her first grievance was filed on February 26, 1990, and, after the second stage reply', no further action was taken by the grievor or the Union on her behalf. At the commencement of our hearing, counsel for the grievor withdrew the allegation of a violation of the Act.. With respect to the alleged violations of the Collective Agreement, he explained that the grievance arose out of a continuing pattern of harassment over three years which had led to work-related stress for the grievor (therefore a violation of Article i8.1, which obligates the Employer "to make reasonable provisions for the safety and health of its employees during the hours of their employment"), and which pattern of conduct was motivated :- discrimination on the basis of her sex, and her creed (being her belief in trade unionism), which was a violation of the new Article A, which prohibits discrimination on various grounds including creed and sex. Counsel referred to twenty-nine specific events, which were listed in his letter to counsel for the .Employer, 'in response to the Employer's request for particulars. This letter was made an exhibit, and the twenty-nine events are set out as follows- 1. 'January 18, 1988 . Discussions between.'the: griever .a0d :Ms, .'Gl, Perusihi · and Mr. John IB0ttedlt regarding rate of accUmu!ation pi. overtime, it. is alleged, that .in restSonse to '.the.· griever.· insisting on overtime being calculated accordirig to the. Colieddve Agreement, Mr. Botterill responded by. threatening to change the manner in which all staff w~e. , credked for doctor's .appointments,' .. 2. February t2, 1988 Performance appraisal for April 1, 1987 to March lg88. 3. May 30, 1988 Orievor lodges comp!atnt to Mr. B°~terill regarding back-. tog of work as wel~ as a Complaint'regarding moving the location of her desk in 'her, absence. "' ..', 4. June 28, 1988 Starting on this date.' and contifiuing-f(5~' the next l~ew, weeks, the grievor had a number of cohversatJ,6inS',ai'l/:::[' d~/aJings with Mr.. BOttedli respecting the locatiori'of:, he~ desk and her lighting. .. ..." .-,. 5. AugUst 22, 1988 Memo.from Mr. Oowan with respect to grievor's'reqU..eOt · to use Mr, Botterilt;s office in Mr. Botteritl'$ absence land. 6. September 15, 1988 Mr. BotterB 'writes to the gde. vo~: regai'dih.g:. 'the. b~.ck-' 7. September 21, 1988 Memo from Mr. Cowan regarding a doc/'to~. S certificaie'.' be required of the gdevor for a 2day absence.: .... 8. OCtober 17, 1988 Mr. Cowan withdraws his request, ..." · 9. November 21, 1988- Memo from the griever, to Ms. Perusini and Mr. B~tiedlr' regarding her. request to'change reporting times:' i0. January 12, 1989 Memo' from the griever to' Mr,' B~>tterill regarding time 11. January 30, ~ 989 . Conversation with Mr+. Botterili regar~i~g'Ove~me." .:.. I2. February 15, 1989 Memo from the gdevO'r to MS, Perusirii,"rega)ding · 13.' February 22, 1989 Memo from Mr. Bottedii to griever 'regarding'changit,~g.' attendance records: .. 14. Marcl~ 1, 198,9 Memo from Mr. Botterilt to griever regarding amending' attendance records. ' " ,,. ,.. 15. March 8, ~ 989 Referenc(~ ,~tatement gkfen' by' Mr. 8o~ehfl' With' respect tO the gdevor. 16. April 21, 1989 Meeting betweer~ the griever, an.d Ms. pe. rusini and Botterill. 17. August 25, 1989 Following a grievance headng on this clat, e,.there is an. exchange of memos and discussions With grievor and Messrs. Botteri[[ and Cowan respecting the accountin~ for that time. 18. September 18, 1989 Memo from griever to Mr. Botterilt regarding training and overtime. 19. september 28, ,~989. Mi. Botte~ill',~ reply.to the aboge. 20. February 2, 1990 ' Memo'from griever.to Ms, PerusinJ.i'egarding to change time sheets, 21. February 4, 1990 Memo tO Mr.. Bot~eriJi from grJev, o~' regardir{g' unfair application of rules. ... 22. February 21, 1990 Memo to Mr. Botterill frorn .grievor. regarding, doctor's 'appointment.. 23. + February 22, 1990 Memo from griever to Mr. Botterill regarding opening of confidential mail (there ;~re. subsequent' exchanges- of correspondence on February 23, April 80, ajid May 2, 1990). 24. March 2, 1990 Mr. Cowaz-t asks an employee,talking to the gd.evor whether she is ~'slumming 'today.".' 25. Mar. 18~19, 1990 " Disoussions and. COrrespondence' between the grievor and Mr. Bottedtl respec~ng the chafing .of time 'for retirement party. .. ' ', .,..., 26. April 5, 1990 Percy Mathias threatened by Mr, Bottedll f0r.speatdng to the gdev0r. .., 27. May 8,' 1990 Conversation between Mr'. Bottedll ired gdevor rega~ monitoring of the griever', by Mrs. Cow-an: 28. AugUSt 21, 1990 N(:d~don~ in Ms, Perusini's. notePad rega/, di.ng.monitodng. · ' of gdegor, .. 29. August 27, 1990 Threatening letter received regarding'cancellation'of staff day. .. Counsel for the Union categorized these events as taking the following six forms: a) imposing speclal procedures On the griever with respect to not completing attendance registers; b) denial of overtime and differential treatment with respect to granting of overtime~ c) differential treatment with respect to use of vacation, time: d) differential treatment with respect to hours of employment such as doctor's appointments; e) threats made by management to the 9devor and to employees having contact with the griever as well as threats of retaliation towards all staff; and other unreasonable behaviour by management toward the griever such as constant monitoring of the griever and unrea3onable behaviour with resect to providing proper furniture and amenities to the griever. In his opening statement, 'counsel for the Employer categorically denied the griever's allegations. And he raised three preliminary objections: · that the grievance was too late, given the antiquity of the events alleged; · that the grievance of February 26, 1990 had been abandoned and the griever ought not to be permitted to revive her complaints; 6 · and that the alleged events, even if proven, do not raise any violation of the Collective Agreement. He asked that we rule on the preliminary objections before we proceed to hear any evidence. We said that we would do so. After hearing Union counsel's reply to the preliminary objections, the Board met with counsel to discuss the case. Following this discussion, Ms. Desi withdrew her grievance.. Thus, she no longer alleges any violation of the Collective Agreement based on the twenty-nine alleged events set out in her counsel's letter of particulars. Done at London, Ontario, this llth day of March , 1991. amuelsl Vice-ChairPerson ~. Klym, Men~b r~~ t/''~ / ~