Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-1581.Damani.00-07-07 Decision o NTARW EMPU) YES DE LA cOURONNE CROW"! EMPLOYEES DE L DNTARW GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE . . SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 600 TORONTO ON M5G 128 TELEPHONElTELEPHONE, (416) 326-1388 180 RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 600 TORONTO (ON) M5G 128 FACSIMILElTELECOPIE. (416) 326-1396 GSB # 1581/95 1703/98 OPSEU # 95E434 99B132 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Emplovees Uruon (Damani) GIievor - and - The Crown III RIght of Ontano (Mirusm of Health) Employer BEFORE Owen V Gra, Vice Chair FOR THE Peggy Srmth GRIEVOR Counsel ElIot Srmth Bamsters & SolICItors FOR THE Roslvn BaIchoo EMPLOYER Counsel Legal SerVIces Branch Management Board Secretanat HEARING December 6 1999 March 24 2000 Ma, 23 2000 DECISION [1] ThIs decIsIOn concerns two gnevances me dated June 30 1995 and August 24 1997 In them, the gnevor complams of havmg been demed trammg and promotIOnal opportumtIes In her opemng statement, umon counsel saId that m so far as the 1997 gnevance refers to competItIOn HL-37 2878 97 thIS IS not a complamt that that competItIOn was conducted Improperly but, rather that the gnevor was dIsadvantaged m that and other Job competItIOns because she had earher been demed secondments, temporary assIgnments and other Job opportu mtIes that were not the subJect of competItIOns The gnevor says that those de mals constItuted dIscnmmatIOn on the basIs of race and umon actIvIty contrary to ArtIcle A of the collectIve agreement m force pnor to March 31 1996 and ArtI cle 3 of the collectIve agreement m force from and after that date By way of remedy she asks that the employer be ordered to appomt her to a full tIme pOSI tIon that takes mto account her quahficatIOns and abIhtIes, and that It be or dered to pay compensatIOn for a 3 month penod m 1995 when she was away from work on sIck leave The Particulars [2] After the hearmg had commenced and the gnevor had begun testIfymg, I ordered that the umon provIde partIculars of the facts on whIch It and the gnevor rehed to demonstrate the dIscnmmatIOn alleged The order reqUIred that The umon shall provIde employer counsel wIth wntten partIculars of the facts that It and the gnevor say demonstrate the elIscnmmatIOn alleged. ~\th respect to each act or omISSIOn alleged, the umon s partIculars shall ill elIcate what was done or not done, when, where bv what means and bv whom. The umon shall also provIde partIculars wIth respect to the gnevor s '3 month sIck leave m 1995 and the connectIOn between It and the alleged elIs- cnmmatIOn. The umon shall also provIde employer counsel wIth copIes of all documents on whIch It and the gnevor mtend to rely m these proceedmgs 2 that have not alreadv been produced to the emplover m connectIOn wIth these gnevances, mcludmg anv mechcal report relIed upon m connectIOn wIth the claIm for compensatIOn. The order also reqUIred that the employer provIde partIculars, and provIded that A partv who falls to produce a document or provIde partIculars of an allega tIon m accordance wIth thIS order mav be precluded from mtroducmg that document or testImonv about that allegatIOn mto eVlClence. [3] By letter dated February 9 2000 umon counsel dehvered the followmg partIculars (paragraph numbermg IS as m the ongmal) Ms. Damam gneves that she has been chscnmmated agamst and demed trammg opportumtIes afforded to other emplovees She further gneves that she was unJustlv demed competItIOn HL37287S-97 and other promotIOnal opportumtIes and trammg whIch has adverselv affected her health and her career The umon alleges that the chscnmmatIOn IS on the basIs of race and unIOn actIvIt V In partIcular the umon wIll be relvmg upon the followmg facts and docu ments: (1) The emplover was aware of Ms. Damam s mterest m obtammg a posItIon whIch used her skIlls and expenence She competed for manv Job opportum tIes, and was encouraged bv the emplover wIth respect to her efforts and un derlvmg abIlItIes. (See exhIbIts 3 4, 7 8) (2) Ms. Damam has been submlttmg letters of reference to the emplover smce 1991 m support of her effort to obtam a better posItIon. (EXhIbIts 12 13, 14, 18) (2) DespIte her efforts, Ms. Damam chd not obtam a posItIon. It IS the umon s posItIon that that chscnmmatIOn plaved a role m her faIlure (3) Durmg thIS tIme, vacanCIes were filled bv the emplover bv temporarv staff. (EXhIbIt 6) ThIs practIce was noted bv an mvestIgator mto the gnevor s harassment complamts m a letter dated Januarv 19 1994 (exhIbIt 11) It was to be revIewed bv management and the outcome conveved to the emplovee. ThIs never happened. (4) The emplover was also dIrected to do a detaIled performance appraIsal, whIch was to mclude a trammg/educatIOn plan and set clear expectatIOns of developmental goals and how thev mIght be achIeved (exhIbIt 10) ThIs never happened. (5) As earlv as 1993 the emplover was aware that the gnevor was suffermg from mental stress and health related problems as a result of alleged har assment at the workplace (ExhIbIt 5 and 11) DespIte thIS knowledge man agement chd nothmg to accommodate the emplovee (6) There were no chscussIOns held as promIsed to assIst the gnevor m devel opmg an appropnate plan or the necessarv skIlls to obtam a posItIon m the publIc sector 3 (7) The gnevor contmued to suffer from stress and her phYSICIan provIded the employer wIth meehcal documentatIOn outlmmg her concerns about the hIgh level of stress the gnevor was workmg under (ExhIbIts 16 and 17) The employer took no actIOn. (8) The gnevor IS a umon actIvIst and has sat on the provmclal commIttee for human nghts. ~nIle workmg m a temporary assIgnment m 1999 the gnevor was requested to stop the transfer of ()PSEU faxes from her work statIOn. At no tIme ehd the gnevor ever request or arrange to have ()PSEU faxes sent to her The gnevor alleges that she was smgled out for nehcule on the basIs of her race and unIOn actIvIty (9) In November 1997 the gnevor applIed for the posItIon of AdmmlstratIve Secretary (postmg HL-3 725 9D/97) (attached applIcatIOn) The gnevor was gIVen an mtervlew but was unsuccessful. At a subsequent meetmg wIth the employer she was advIsed that her problems were the way you answered questIOns, the usual thmgs The gnevor has never been advIsed or coun selled wIth respect to an lClentIfied weakness wIth respect to the mterVIew process. (10) The gnevor contmues to be affected bv the ongomg harassment and ehs- cnmmatIOn she faces at the workplace Attached IS a COPy of her current meehcal assessment. In adehtIOn to the exhIbIts referred to above we enclose all adehtIOnal docu ments whIch wIll be relIed upon at the hearmg These adehtIOnal documents have been ehvlCled mto two categones (1) other Job applIcatIOns whIch wIll be submItted to support our posItIon that the gnevor has actIvely searched for alternatIve posItIons, and (2) other documents whIch wIll be relIed upon to establIsh both the employer s knowledge of the gnevor s concerns and the faIlure to act upon them. In partIcular I address your attentIOn to the docu ment lIstmg the employees IdentIfied as sIttmg m temporary or other a' rangements whIle such opportumtIes were consIstently demed to the gnevor Fmallv please note that the gnevor wIll testIfy to the fact that she faced dav to dav harassment from her co-workers, and m partIcular Barbara Margeson. The order reqUIrmg the delIvery of partIculars was made before the gnevor's cross-exammatIOn was complete When the hearmg resumed the umon was al lowed to and dId re-open the gnevor's testImony m chIef [4] As regards the testImony that the gnevor gave pnor my makmg the order I have not consIdered any assertIOns that are unrelated to any of the allegatIOns set out m the partIculars For example durmg that testImony the gnevor saId that she had been "harassed by people m the office tellIng me what to do bemg supenor watchmg me how long I am on lunch, complammg She dId not say who had done thIS, nor were the occaSIOns IdentIfied The order for partIculars clearly reqUIred that an allegatIOn of thIS kmd be partIculanzed by IdentIfymg 4 the occaSIOns, descnbmg what was done and nammg the people saId to have done It The partIculars named only Barbara Margeson. The gnevor dId not men tIon Ms. Margeson m her testImony eIther before or after the partIculars were delIvered so the adequacy of the partIculars of the allegatIOn agamst her dId not come mto Issue Counsel for the employer exercIsed admIrable restramt m that and other respects durmg the hearmg of these gnevances I do want It to be clear however that I dId not and do not consIder the partIculars of the allega tIon agamst Ms Margeson an adequate or appropnate response to my order When partIculars are reqUIred It IS not enough to say that someone engaged m harassment - detaIls of the conduct SaId to constItute harassment must be pro vIded The Evidence [5] The gnevor began wIth the MmIstry of Health m 1976 as an OAG 6 Her posItIOn was upgraded to OAG 8 m the course of a reorgamzatIOn m 1989 Her current home posItIOn IS AdmmIstratIve Secretary PopulatIOn Health Umt, PublIc Health Branch. [6] In May 1993 the gnevor was mformed that she was not the successful candIdate for a 3 month temporary assIgnment as a Grants Clerk. In June 1993 the gnevor was mformed that she was not the successful candIdate for an M mmIstratIve Secretary posItIOn m the InstItutIOnal Health dIvIsIOn. The gnevor testIfied that "they brought someone they knew from another department, that she thought she was the qualIfied candIdate "but I dId not have a fnend who was a manager The gnevor dId not file a gnevance wIth respect to the conduct or outcome of that competItIOn. [7] The gnevor testIfied that she had started gomg to her doctor m March 1993 because of stress In October 1993 her doctor wrote as follows to the DIrec tor of the gnevor's Branch (ExhibIt 5) Mrs. Damalll has been my patIent SInce 1985 She has always enjoyed good mental and- physIcal health. 5 About two months ago she started to experIence stress secondary to harass- ment at work. She trIed to gather herself after her VISIt m August 1993 However I understand the sItuatIOn m her work enVIronment gets worse and she IS currently under my care and IS takmg mechcatIOn. She has always been very stable As her famIly phYSICIan, I request your co-operatIOn m adJustmg her work enVIronment that It would be beneficIal for her health and thus mcrease her performance Please contact me If you feel necessary ThIS letter was tendered only as eVIdence of what the employer had been told and not as eVIdence of the truth of ItS contents [8] Ms. Damam stated that the harassment referred to m the doctor's letter was not the two Job competItIOns but her entIre work sItuatIOn, her work enVI ronment Asked by umon counsel to say what m partIcular had been happemng m that regard she testIfied m a general way that a lot of tImes posItIOns were not advertIsed, and GO Temps would be brought m to fill them She saId she had complamed to her DIrector and to the Deputy MmIster about thIS, and that the PresIdent of the Local had corresponded wIth management about It as well. An e mall sent by the Local Umon PresIdent on March 16 1994 was mtroduced (Ex hIbIt 6) m thIS connectIOn. It complamed of Improper use of temporary workers and faIlure to follow the reqUIrements of the collectIve agreement wIth respect to the postmg and fillmg of vacanCIes, among other thmgs It argued that prefer ence should be gIven or postmgs should be restncted to classIfied staff, because trammg or developmental opportumtIes had been assIgned to GO Temp or un classIfied staff classIfied staff and classIfied staff "loose out on competItIOns be cause they aren t provIded wIth staff development I am told that some or all of the allegatIOns m that memo later became the subJect of a umon gnevance that had not been resolved by the tIme these gnevances first came on for hearmg [9] In response to the doctor's allegatIOn that the gnevor was a vIctIm of har assment, the employer launched an mvestIgatIOn. The mvestIgator JessIca HIll, reported as follows on January 19 1994 (ExhibIt 11) I have mvestIgated the letter from Yasmm Damalll's famIly phYSICIan alleg mg harassment m the workplace 6 I have not found any eVIdence to substantIate harassment on any of the grounds m the Human RIghts Code. However I do recommend that there be attentIOn gIVen to Improve manage- ment's responsIbIlItIes for settmg performance standards and carrvmg out proper performance management processes. I recommend that the Human Resources Branch develop an actIOn plan wIth management and subse quentlv convey to the employee changes m the performance management process. As well a major concern of Yasmm has been the hIstoncal patterns m whIch, the processes for fillmg vacanCIes WIth temporary staff have taken place I would recommend that the practIces be revIewed wIth the Human Resources Branch and the outcome conveyed to the employee Both of these areas should be addressed wIthm the next month. So far as the gnevor IS aware management dId not act on the recommendatIOns contamed m the last three paragraphs of thIS report [10] In late 1994 the gnevor applIed for a ProJect Coordmator posItIOn m the X Ray InspectIOn ServIce of the MmIstry She was not the successful candIdate She testIfied that "a temporary person was hIred The Umon does not suggest that the temporary person was not the most qualIfied candIdate [11] The gnevor contmued to be concerned about, and to complam about, the way Job opportumtIes were bemg allocated by management In June 1995 she wrote as follows to the DIrector of her branch. RE MEETING (IF JUNE 2 1995 I wIsh to thank you for meetmg wIth me on June 2, 1995 at your request re- gardmg mv sItuatIOn m the Branch. After outlmmg mv problem to you, you made some comments and offered some suggestIOns whIch I thmk could be helpful. There were several opportumtIes whIch were gIVen to selected mchvlCluals bv retrammg them and gIVmg them extra dutIes to perform m order to Improve theIr marketable skIlls and to make the mchvlClual appear attractIve m theIr Job specIficatIOns. Also theIr Job tItles were changed and dutIes taIlored to re- flect chfferentlv from theIr ongmal Job reqUIrements. Another Issue that came out for chscussIOn was; In prevIOus years there were temporary assIgnments whIch were duratIOn of approx. 2 months whIch have contmued up untIl 2 years. PrevIOusly I mentIOned that I was mterested m these assIgnments but was told at that tIme that they were only for two to three weeks but that turned out not to be the case. You admItted that thIS was a mIstake but after all I was bypassed and lost out on both gamed expe- 7 nence and salary ThIs IS only one example of numerous assIgnments that was treated In the same unfaIr manner Durmg the last 4 years I have notIced thIS happenmg tIme and tIme agam and have allowed It to bypass me as I felt that by ment alone I would be gIVen the opportunIty to be recognIzed for my hard work, patIence and perse verance. Smce I have been bypassed m many occaSIOns I now feel I should VOIce my chssatIsfactIOn that I have been unjustly treated. By talkmg wIth you I hoped that some reasonable redress would come about whereby I could benefit. I accepted your mVItatIOn to chscuss these Issues because I felt that you could be gIVen the opportunIty to JustIfy and even explam why I am so badly treated. But even thIS seems too much to be expected from you. I also raIsed the questIOn as to why I never got a response from ~rendy Hans- son regardmg the posItIon of AdmmIstratIve AssIstant. You had mentIOned that you would look mto thIS matter for me and respond. To date nothmg You also mformed me of two upcommg posItIons. I shall be preparmg myself for them. Human Resources expectatIOns was another area chscussed but they seem to be maccessIble whenever I try to reach them by phone or Emml. I seem never to get a favourable response. You suggested that you were there to a,,- SISt me m developmg my marketable skIlls m computer mtervIewmg skIlls and further trammg I would lIke to let you know that although you made some suggestIOns whIch I wIll be followmg up on, I am stIll not satIsfied that anythmg was achIeved at all. Less than a week of our meetmg other CIrcumstances have changed whIch needs to be addressed m a definItIve manner ThIs partIcular sItuatIOn IS chstressmg to me as It smacks qUIte clearly of fa vountIsm wIthm the branch and thIS perceptIOn needs to be cleared up to my satIsfactIOn. Two to three years ago when I applIed for Jobs wIthm the DIVl SIOn, they were offered to other employees from other branches who were much lower m classIficatIOn than mme but the only excuse I was gIVen was that they won the competItIOn. Most temporary staff are hIred wIthout all the necessary skIlls but are tramed and eqUIpped to fill the hIgher posItIons. I keep wondermg what has become of the notIon of mternal trammg and promotIOn based on ment mstead of contmually hIrmg temporary staff to fill the hIgher posItIons whIch permanent staff can fill wIth mInImal trammg and backfill wIth temporary staff m the lower posItIons. I look forward to a prompt reply I have reproduced thIS memo m full because It IS IllustratIve of the specIficIty wIth whIch, for the most part, she explamed her complamts durmg her testI mony before me 8 [12] On June 30 1995 the gnevor filed the first of the two gnevances now be fore me At the second stage of the gnevance process, the Deputy MmIster's desIgnate answered the gnevance as follows (ExhIbIt 10) ThIS IS to confirm the Stage 2 meetmg whIch was convened at your request on Thursday September 28 1995 m accordance wIth ArtIcle 27 '3 '3 of the CollectIve Agreement. As the Deputy MmIster's desIgnate, I have revIewed the CIrcumstances sur roundmg the gnevance whIch alleged that you "have been chscnmmated agamst contrary but not exclusIVe to ArtIcle "A of the CollectIve Agreement and have been denIed trammg opportunItIes afforded to other employees." I have noted your concerns and offer the followmg comments I recognIze that workload often mhIbIts the abIlIty to practIce the computer skIlls whIch you have acqUIred and can only suggest that you arrange to go to the Help Centre as often as necessary to bUIld confidence m your skIll base They can not only provIde you wIth one-on-one assIstance but can also lend you books and vIdeos that wIll enhance the trammg you have already :re- ceIved. As well, I would lIke to encourage you to contmue to pursue formal develop- mental opportunItIes as they become avaIlable and recommend that you ce- velop together wIth your manager a plan of actIOn that wIll assIst you m achIevmg your goals. ThIs mIght mclude the settmg aSIde of specIfic tImes for VISItS to the Help Centre and should be followed through. Further confidence mIght also be obtamed through meetmg wIth someone m the Human Resources Branch who could assIst you m strengthenmg your ill terVlew skIlls. After careful conslCleratIOn of all the Issues raIsed, I would further dIrect Management to do a detaIled Performance AppraIsal whIch wIll mclude a Trammg/EducatIOn Plan and set clear expectatIOns on the type of work <E- sIgnments (developmental) that you are mterested m and that Management should assIst you m achIevmg them. I belIeve that the course of actIOn I have outlmed above wIll help resolve your concerns. Therefore, at thIS tIme, I wIll deny your gnevance The gnevance was not settled Management dId not thereafter perform a per formance appraIsal or do any of the other thmgs suggested m the penultImate paragraph of thIS answer The gnevor testIfied that the employer's faIlure to conduct performance appraIsals created a "pOIsoned enVIronment for her IE cause there was no way to prove to the employer that she knew her Job and If she was makmg mIstakes or needed Improvement she could not find that out 9 [13] The gnevor testIfied that some tIme after the doctor's letter of October 1993 her doctor told her to stay home and that she decIded to take three months off after the HIll report was put together At a later pomt m her testImony she tendered two further notes from her doctor (ExhibIts 16 and 17) One a hand wntten note dated October 6 1995 says (lff work from (let 2/95 for 1 week. To return to work on (let. 10/95 Ms. Da manI remaIns under treatment. The next, a typewntten note dated February 8 1996 says I am the famIly phYSICIan of Mrs. Damalll for eleven years She has undergone tremendous stress from 1993 wIth multIple somatIc symptoms Durmg the summer of 1995 she was under a lot of stress, that I advIsed her to take total rest whIch she evetually [SIC] lIstened and took off from July 28 1995 to (lctober G 1995 and also saw a pSYChIatrIst It IS not apparent what prompted the preparatIOn of the typewntten note There IS no eVIdence that the employer was asked to do anythmg m response to eIther of these notes It IS not apparent that the CIrcumstances called for any response by the employer beyond ItS treatmg the absences referred to as absences due to Illness [14] CompetItIOn HL-37 287S 97 was for the posItIOn of secretary to Dr Momca Naus The gnevor applIed and was mtervIewed for the posItIOn, but was not the successful candIdate She spoke afterwards to Dr Naus who told her that she was not selected because of the way she answered questIOns and IE cause someone more qualIfied had applIed As I have noted the umon does not say that the successful candIdate was not the most qualIfied [15] The gnevor's assertIOn that she IS a umon actIvIst IS not dIsputed The employer acknowledges that whIle the gnevor was workmg m a temporary as sIgnment m 1999 OPSEU faxes penodIcally arnved at a fax machme near the work statIOn at whIch she performed that assIgnment Faxes from OPSEU wIth out any named addressee contmued to arnve at that fax machme after the 10 gnevor's assIgnment ended and she no longer worked m the area Bye maIl, the manager wrote to the gnevor It would be apprecIated If you could arrange to have ()PSEU faxes trans- ferred to your fax machme and personal Items removed [SIC] the work statIOn. The gnevor responded by e maIl as follows Good mornmg Geoff: Geoff m the first place I had never arranged to have OPSEU faxes trans- ferred to your fax machme when I started workmg m your area Feb 1/99 Infact, when I started there, I was seekmg [SIC] faxes sIttmg m the slot where the fax machme IS. I would apprecIate m future not to be blamed for somethmg that I have ar ranged to have ()PSEU faxes arrIve at that partIcular fax machme I wIll certamly clear all my personal Items from the workstatIOn. Thank you and have a nIce day One of the examples that the gnevor gave durmg her exammatIOn m chIef of harassment she had suffered was that she had been "harassed by the employer saymg faxes were commg for me on thIS occaSIOn. The e maIl from Geoff appears to have been the only commumcatIOn from management to the gnevor on the subJect of these faxes [16] The gnevor's partIculars refer to a "document lIstmg the employees Iden tIfied as sIttmg m temporary or other arrangements whIle such opportumtIes were consIstently demed to the gnevor In ItS partIculars, the employer pro vIded detaIls of the employment of most of those named m the document NeIther document constItutes eVIdence of the allegatIOns m It In the hearmg, the umon offered no eVIdence wIth respect to the employment of the mdIvIduals on the lIst If the gnevor's testImony touched on any of these mdIvIduals, It dId so wIthout mentIOnmg the employee s name or detaIls of the assIgnment sufficIent to con nect It WIth the partIculars 11 Decision [17] I accept as a general matter that raCIsm "IS out there as the gnevor put It at one pomt I agree wIth umon counsel s submIssIOn that raCIsm IS often la tent, m the sense that those whose conduct IS mfluenced by racIst attItudes may not openly acknowledge It It IS not necessary for the umon to prove that dIs cnmmatIOn on the basIs of race was the sole or even a maJor reason for employer conduct detnmental to the gnevor If dIscnmmatIOn on the basIs of race played any part m the employer's treatment of the gnevor then It breached the collec tIve agreement prOVISIOn that prohibIted such dIscnmmatIOn. The presence and effect of racIst attItudes may be dIfficult to detect and prove It does not follow and the umon does not suggest, that proof IS therefore unnecessary or that the mere allegatIOn of racIal dIscnmmatIOn shIfts the burden of dIsprovmg the alle gatIon to those accused of It The same may be SaId about antI umon ammus and dIscnmmatIOn on the basIs of umon actIvIty [18] The gnevor says she cannot understand why she has not advanced m the CIVIl serVIce unless It IS because she IS the vIctIm of dIscnmmatIOn on the basIs of her race or umon actIvIty or both. Her subJectIve belIef that she IS the vIctIm of dIscnmmatIOn, however strong, IS not proof that she IS ThIS would be so even m the absence of eVIdence that she IS mclmed to exaggeratIOn m labellmg her expe nences In that regard, I should say that m my VIew the manager's e maIl quoted m paragraph [15] above dId not constItute "harassment m any obJectIve sense of that word LIkeWIse the employer's faIlure to conduct performance reVIews, whatever else may be SaId about It, cannot be SaId to have created a "pOIsoned work enVIronment as that phrase IS ordmanly used and understood [19] A good deal of umon counsel s argument focused on two admItted facts that management dId not do as Ms HIll recommended m her 1994 report and dId not conduct a performance reVIew as "dIrected by the MmIster's desIgnate m hIS stage 2 answer to the gnevor's 1995 gnevance The umon does not argue that the gnevor had a legal nght to what the HIll report recommended eIther before 12 or as a result of her recommendatIOn. Nor does the umon suggest that gnevor had a legal nght to a performance reVIew eIther before or as a result of the sec ond stage answer to the 1995 gnevance The argument IS that management s unexplamed faIlure to do as had been recommended or dIrected JustIfied an m ference that raCIsm and/or antIpathy to the gnevor's umon actIvIty m advancmg her complamts must have played a role m the employer's treatment of the gnevor m these and other respects [20] The faIlure of management to eIther do as Ms HIll recommended or ex plam why It would not or dId not do so IS perplexmg SO IS management s faIlure to eIther do as the MmIster's delegate dIrected or explam why It would not or dId not In all the cIrcumstances, however these thmgs are not a sufficIent basIs for the mference the umon asks me to draw Certamly there IS no other basIs for such an mference [21] There IS no suggestIOn, and no eVIdence that the gnevor was the only classIfied employee allegedly dIsadvantaged by the management practIces about whIch she and the umon were complammg m 1995 and afterwards There IS no eVIdence concermng the actual or apparent racIal ongms of other allegedly dIS advantaged employees, or of those members of management responsible for the practIces, or of those employees alleged to have benefited from them In so far as the employer had work opportumtIes to assIgn that were not subJect to postmg and competItIOn, the gnevor asserts m a generally way that she was demed op portumtIes afforded other employees and that the opportumtIes she got were not as advantageous as those that others got Agam, the eVIdence does not IdentIfy the actual or apparent racIal ongms of the decIsIOn makers or of the other em ployees to whom they allegedly gave preferentIal treatment I do not suggest that eVIdence of the matters Just referred to would have been necessary or sufficIent, for these gnevances to succeed These observatIOns are sImply meant to Illus trate and underscore my conclUSIOn that the eVIdence before me IS not an ade quate basIs on whIch to sustam the claIms made 13 [22] DIsappomtmg as It undoubtedly IS for Ms Damam, the fact that an em ployee wIth her years of satIsfactory serVIce dId not get the sort of work opportu mtIes she sought durmg the perIod m questIOn IS not so surprIsmg as to warrant, wIthout other obJectIve eVIdence of It, an mference that dISCrImmatIOn played a part m the outcome The eVIdence put before me does not support the grIevances [23] Accordmgly these grIevances are dIsmIssed Dated at Toronto thIS 7th day of July 2000 ~(/ 14