HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-4461.Vrantsidis.23-08-08 Decision
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
GSB# 2013-4461; 2015-1805; 2015-2202; 2016-0749; 2016-2199;
2016-2200; 2016-2201; 2016-2202; 2016-2203
UNION# 2013-0104-0003; 2015-0104-0002; 2015-0104-0005;
2015-0104-0006; 2016-0104-0002; 2016-0104-0003;
2016-0104-0004; 2016-0104-0005; 2016-0104-0006
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Vrantsidis) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Education) Employer
BEFORE Deborah J.D. Leighton Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION Andrew Mindszenthy and Jesse Gutman
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officers
FOR THE EMPLOYER Felix Lau
Treasury Board Secretariat
Labour Practice Group
Counsel
HEARING
CONFERENCE CALL
November 13, 2015; January 14 and October 13, 2016;
January 12, April 5, April 6, April 12, June 8, June 14, July 21,
November 23, 2017; February 8 and February 27, March 14,
October 25, December 11 and December 12, 2018; January
30, February 13, July 9, July 10, September 5, October 30,
November 6, November 27, December 11, 2019; June 26, July
15, July 22, July 29, August 5, August 6, and August 11, 2020
June 22, 2023
-2 -
Decision
[1] Mr. Doug Vrantsidis, a Systems Officer 3 (SO3) at the Robarts School for the
Deaf, grieves that the ministry discriminated and harassed him because he is a
Deaf person, creating a poisoned workplace in breach of the Human Rights
Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 19 and the collective agreement. The hearing went
forward with the aid of two expert American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters
over five years. There is extensive oral and documentary evidence before me.
Much of the admissible evidence is not in dispute.
[2] The parties wish to enter settlement discussions and this decision may help that
process. It is a bottom-line decision, with reasons to follow, if the parties are not
successful in coming to a global settlement on the grievances before me and
further outstanding grievances filed during and since this hearing.
[3] Some context is necessary. Mr. Vrantsidis was born with a significant degree of
deafness and grew up learning to read lips. He is able to use his voice and his
limited hearing, with hearing aids to communicate with hearing individuals in
certain conditions. His ability to communicate orally in English depends on the
person speaking with him, his or her voice and style of speaking and factors such
as background noise. He needs ASL interpretation for group meetings.
[4] The grievor began work at Robarts in 1995 and up until 2010, by all accounts
loved his work and was a valued employee. In 2010 a new manager took over
the IT unit and a classification review of all the systems operators did not result in
-3 -
a promotion for the grievor in 2011. The management of the IT unit is separate
from the management of the school.
[5] The central issue here is whether there is sufficient evidence before me to find
that the grievor’s deafness was a factor in the ministry’s treatment of him
between 2010 and 2016, thereby constituting a breach of his human rights and
the collective agreement. The union advanced two positions in this case. First,
that the ministry discriminated and harassed the grievor, arguing that the
employer’s mindset after 2010 was that hearing individuals were superior to the
Deaf, who should as much as possible fit in to a hearing world – a concept that it
identified as Audism. Further, in the union’s opinion the grievor’s work and
responsibilities were systematically eroded over these years because he is a
Deaf person. The second position is that certain incidents occurred, which
discriminated against the grievor by essentially treating him as a hearing
employee, thus creating a poisoned workplace for him -- as an example,
requiring him to use a telephone when his capacity to do so was very limited.
[6] The ministry's position is that the grievor became a disgruntled employee after a
job reclassification, which did not result in a promotion for him. For some of the
upper management at the school, the consensus was that the grievor’s
complaints and grievances were nonsense. The ministry categorically denies
any discrimination and harassment or of being liable for Audism.
[7] Having carefully considered the evidence and the submissions of the parties, I
have decided to grant the grievances in part. I must note here that I did not rely
-4 -
on the Provincial Schools Report (1991) as I found it not to be relevant or helpful
to the issues I was deciding in this case. Nor did I rely on certain evidence
proffered in reply that was out of scope for reply evidence.
[8] Thus, I am persuaded that on the balance of probabilities the evidence on
several of the incidents grieved, support a finding that the employer is liable for
discrimination and harassment which created a poisoned workplace for the
grievor and is therefore deserving of damages for breach of the Code and the
collective agreement.
[9] However, regarding the allegations that management is liable for Audism, I find
that I am not persuaded of this. To prove Audism, or any form of discrimination,
there does not need to be evidence of intent to discriminate. Unconscious bias
can drive behaviour. But on the evidence before me I cannot conclude that the
ministry's behavior was coloured by a belief that hearing individuals are superior
to the Deaf.
[10] Lastly, while the grievor’s job duties changed considerably over the time frame
between 2010 and 2016, there is not enough evidence to prove that this occurred
because he is a member of the Deaf community.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 8th of August 2023.
“Deborah J.D. Leighton”
Deborah J.D. Leighton, Arbitrator