HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-3753.Louis.12-05-29 Decision
Crown Employees
rieva
nce Settlement
oard
1Z8
l. (416) 326-1388
x (416) 326-1396
t des griefs
es employés de la
t
Z8
l. : (416) 326-1388
léc. : (416) 326-1396
UNION#2008-0502-0019
IN THE MATTER ARBITRATION
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
ETWEEN
G
B
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G
Te
Commission de
règlemen
d
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Oues
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1
Té
Té
Fa
GSB#2008-3753
OF AN
Under
B
Ontario Public Sployees Union
Union
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Transportation) Employer
ervice Em
(Louis)
- and -
BEFORE Daniel Harris Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
lmes LLP
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Jane Letton
Ryder Wright Blair & Ho
Barristers and Solicitors
Services
ractice Group
Susan Munn
Ministry of Government
Labour P
Counsel
HEARING May 14, 2012.
- 2 -
Decision
[1] This grievance alleges that the grievor was subjected to racial discrimination at the
hands of her co-workers. She says that she reported the situation to her manager, her
director and to human resources personnel, but no action was taken. The Union says
that there were violations of articles 2, 3 and 9 of the Collective Agreement.
[2] The Union has closed its case. The Employer introduced a motion to non-suit the
grievance, and the parties argued their respective positions.
[3] The standard to be applied in determining a non-suit motion is set out in Re Allin
GSB 2008-1407 (Dissanayake) at paragraph 10, which reads in part as follows:
. . . Thus the instant motion must be upheld if the union has failed to adduce
evidence sufficient to support its claim. In assessing sufficiency, the Board must
determine whether the union has proven its case on the balance of probabilities, if
its witnesses are believed and the benefit of any inferences to be drawn are ruled
in the union’s favour.
[4] Vice-Chair Dissanayake reached that summary after reviewing the Board’s decisions
in Re Whan GSB 2003-3446 (Dissanayake) and Re Gareh GSB 1998-1665 (Brown).
There are other observations from the cases that are helpful. These include that the
test is whether some evidence exists to support the claim that requires an answer or
explanation from the other side, viva voce evidence as well as documentary evidence
must be considered and where a non-suit motion is granted a written decision with
reasons will follow. However, where it is dismissed, no reasons will be given.
- 3 -
[5] The grievor gave evidence as to the facts set out above and her physician testified as
to the impact on her health.
[6] Having regard to all of the evidence given to date, and the submissions of the parties,
I am satisfied that the employer’s non-suit motion must fail. The union’s evidence is
sufficient to prove its case on a balance of probabilities, if its witnesses are believed
and the benefit of any inferences to be drawn are ruled in the union’s favour.
Dated at Toronto this 29th day of May 2012.
Daniel Harris, Vice-Chair