The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2010-1756.Labelle.11-09-28 DecisionCommission de Crown Employees Grievance Settlement UqJOHPHQt des griefs Board dHVHPSOR\pVGHOD Couronne Suite 600 Bureau 600 180 Dundas St. West180, rue Dundas Ouest Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 7pl. : (416) 326-1388 x (416) 326-1396 7pOpF Fa GSB#2010-1756 UNION#2010-0616-0027 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Sployees Union ervice Em (Labelle) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer BEFOREVice-Chair Loretta Mikus FOR THE UNION Jane Letton Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Barristers and Solicitors FOR THE EMPLOYER Caroline Cohen Ministry of Government Services Labour Practice Group Counsel HEARING May 10, 2011. - 2 - Decision [1]This award deals with the preliminary objection of the Employer to the content of the grievance before me. Specifically, it takes the position that the Union has attempted to expand the scope of the grievance by adding allegations against a co-worker of the grievor and harassment by Deputy Superintendent following an incident involving alleged improper handling of an inmates mail. [2]The grievor, Carolle Labelle, filed the following grievance dated September 3, 2010: I grieve that I have been discriminated against, harassed and bullied by management in the workplace. I also maintained that the actions of management have adversely affected my health. I therefore grieve under articles 2, 3 and 9 of the collective agreement as well as Bill 168it and any other articles, policies and legislation that may apply. [3]At a meeting on September 15, 2010, the allegations of harassment in the grievance were discussed and summarized in a letter from the Employer as follows: the refusal by the Employer to transfer two inmates who had threatened the grievor; forcing her to work in an area where these inmates were housed; harassment by former Acting Deputy Superintendent Doug Houghton through various letters and e-mails. [4]In preparation for the hearing, the Union forwarded a document containing the particulars it intended to rely on and the remedies it intended to request from the Board. The first two paragraphs stated that the proceedings arose from an individual grievance which alleged that the Employer harassed the grievor by permitting a co-worker to bully the grievor and through the direct actions of management staff. Paragraphs 3 to 35 relate to various allegations of bullying and harassment by Rose Beauchamp which, it was said, management failed to remedy. Those allegations began in 2008 and continued to February 2011 when the grievor went off work on sick leave. [5]3DUDJUDSK¶VWR - 3 - REASONS FOR DECISION [9]Since there is so little time before we are scheduled to reconvene the parties have asked for a quick response. For that reason I have not repeated all the submissions or referred to all the cases law presented at the hearing. I have, however, fully read and considered them in arriving at my decision to allow the Union to proceed with the particulars of the incidents involving Ms. Beauchamp. [10]The Employer has been aware since 2008 that the relationship between Ms. Beauchamp and the JULHYRUKDVEHHQSUREOHPDWLFDQGLQWKHJULHYRU¶V view, has failed to respond in an appropriate manner. The particulars, which have yet to be proven, show that in thHJULHYRU¶VRSLQLRQWKH Employer has discriminated against her by refusing to recognize the difficulties her relationship with Ms. Beauchamp have had on her ability to do her work. While I agree it does not seem to have been part of the discussion at the Step 2 meeting, the particulars appear to indicate there has been much discussion in the past and some attempts to resolve the problem with no success. In P\YLHZWKHSDUWLFXODUVDERXWWKH(PSOR\HU¶VDpproach to the problems between the grievor and Ms. Beauchamp are not entirely unrelated to the grievance but are a component ofWKHJULHYRU¶V DOOHJDWLRQVDQGFDQIRUPSDUWRIWKH8QLRQ¶VFDVH [11]6LPLODUO\WKHLVVXHRIWKHLPSURSHUKDQGOLQJRIDQLQPDWH¶VPDLORQLWVIDFHDSSHDUVWREHD distinct issue of work performance which, in the normal course of events would not be grievable. 2QO\LIWKHJULHYRUFDQVKRZWKDWWKH(PSOR\HU¶V actions were the result of discrimination or harassment does it become an issue under her grievance. In order to answer that question, I will have to hear the evidence. DECISION [12])RUWKHDERYHUHDVRQVWKH(PSOR\HU¶VUHTXHVWWRVWrike section 1 and 3 of WKH8QLRQ¶VSDUWLFXODUV is denied. We will reconvene the hearing on the dates already set. th Dated at Toronto this 28 day of September 2011. Loretta Mikus, Vice-Chair