HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-1169.Ranger.17-03-08 Decision
Crown 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#2013-1169, 2013-1170
UNION#2013-0424-0002, 2013-0424-0003
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Ranger) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE Daniel Harris Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Craig Flood
Koskie Minsky LLP
Counsel
FOR THE EMPLOYER Stewart McMahon
Treasury Board Secretariat
Legal Services Branch
Counsel
HEARING February 3, 2017
- 2 -
Decision
[1] This is an application by the employer to restrict the union from calling certain
evidence at the hearing of this matter. There have been multiple days of
evidence.
[2] As set out in my decision dated May 7, 2015, the union has filed two grievances
on behalf of Robert Ranger. Mr. Ranger is a corrections officer being
accommodated in a position in the probation and parole office in Ottawa. The
union has grieved that a five-day suspension received by Mr. Ranger was a
breach of the collective agreement because the employer imposed excessive
discipline as opposed to progressive discipline. The second grievance alleges
that the employer has failed to provide a workplace that is free of discrimination
and harassment.
[3] My decision dated May 7, 2015 was as a result of an application by the employer
to strike out aspects of the union's claims and to limit evidence that the union
might call.
[4] The employer's application then, as now, was as a result of the union having
provided particulars of its claims in two letters dated January 21, 2014 and
November 26, 2014.
- 3 -
[5] The evidence now sought to be constrained relates to a request by Mr. Ranger
on November 13, 2013 that he be given vacation time of December 23, 24, 27,
30 and 31, 2013. The second area of evidence the employer now seeks to
prevent relates to the posting by Mr. Ranger of articles from the Ottawa Citizen
on a Union bulletin board. Persons unknown removed those articles. It is alleged
that Mr. Ranger complained to his supervisor about the removal of the articles
and no action was taken to investigate their removal. Those articles allegedly
relate to Mr. Ranger’s previous litigation before the Grievance Settlement Board
in which he had successfully grieved the employer's failure to prevent
harassment and discrimination against him on the basis of his sexual orientation.
Both of these areas were particularized in the January 21, 2014 letter to counsel
for the ministry.
[6] Counsel for the Ministry sought further particulars which were provided in the
second letter dated November 26, 2014. Specifically, the union elaborated upon
the missing articles in the following terms:
Mr. Ranger posted a number of articles that were published about
him and his experiences as a gay man working as a Correctional
Officer. The articles chronicled the history of abuse, harassment
and discrimination to which he was subjected. Proud of what he
had been able to achieve and wanting to ensure that others were
aware of what he had endured, Mr. Ranger posted articles from
Xtra, the Ottawa Citizen and a feature article which ran in
newspapers including the Toronto Star. The articles were posted at
the same time as, or shortly after, they were published. They were
removed shortly after being posted.
- 4 -
[7] The grievances here were filed in June 2013. It is now three years since the
grievances were first particularized. The employer now seeks, in mid-hearing, to
prevent the calling of evidence relating to these events on the basis that they
occurred after the filing of the grievances. These events are no surprise to me,
and I fully expected that evidence would be called in relation to them. These
events have been part of the narrative for all of this time. In my view, it is simply
too late for the employer to object to the particulars provided on the basis that
they occurred after the date of the grievance. Just as events stretching
backwards in time from the filing the grievance might be relied upon to show a
course of action that amounts to harassment and/or discrimination, certainly, in
this case, these events, particularized as they were three years ago, may be
explored with respect to where they fit into the narrative arc that the union seeks
to present. The weight to be attached to them may be argued at the close of the
case.
[8] The employer’s application to prevent the calling of evidence relating to these
two events is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 8th day of March 2017.
Daniel Harris, Vice-Chair