GSB# 1564/98

UNION# 99B027

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Barrett et al.)

Grievor

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community, Family and Children’s Services)

Employer

BEFORE

Jules Bloch

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Suneel Bahal Counsel Management Board Secretariat

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Peggy E. Smith Eliot, Smith Barristers and Solicitors

HEARING

June 9, 2003.

Preliminary Award

1This group grievance was referred to the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB) for arbitration. On December 18, 2000, a memorandum of settlement was entered into between OPSEU, William Barrett, grievor, and The Crown in right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community & Social Services. This grievance involves a facility which has subsequently been privatized. The parties agree that I have jurisdiction for the purpose of rendering this preliminary award.

2The union requested that this matter be re-listed to deal with the other issues relating to this group grievance. OPSEU asserts that this grievance is a group grievance and thus the memorandum of settlement referred to above only resolves the issues as they pertain to Mr. Barrett.

3The Crown raises four preliminary issues. The Crown argues that this grievance is not properly before me because the facts do not relate to a single event and therefore cannot be put forward as a group grievance. Alternatively, in remaining arguments, the Crown asserts that the grievance has been either previously settled or terminated.

4The parties further agree that the grievance relates to a number of individuals in the bargaining unit. The parties agree that the various issues, which on their face are separate and free-standing complaints or events, relate to the actions of one supervisor.

5The union submits that I should deal with this group grievance because the actions of this supervisor have created a “poisoned work environment.” The employer asserts that the union should have filed a number of individual grievances or alternatively a policy grievance.

6In dismissing this matter, I do not find it necessary to comment on the aspects of the case that involve either the previous settlement of the grievance or alternatively the putative termination of the grievance. Article 22.11. 1 of the Collective Agreement which deals with group grievances states, “In the event that more than one employee is directly affected by one specific incident or circumstance... a group grievance shall be presented...; signed by such employees to the Employer at Stage 2....”

7The parties agreed that the only common thread in this grievance is the actions or inactions of a supervisor as those actions relate to separate alleged incidents involving various members of the bargaining unit. The incidents complained of are properly disposed of as individual grievances. If this were not the case, each action by a supervisor towards her or his supervisees would be a group grievance. This was not the intention of the parties. Further, if the union wants to deal with this matter on the basis of a “poisoned work environment,” I would draw the union’s attention to Article 22.13 of the Collective Agreement between the parties.

1. I find that the complaints discussed herein involve various members of the bargaining unit cannot be brought as a group grievance because this grievance does not involve “... more than (1) employee who is directly affected by one specific incident or circumstance...” This grievance is therefore dismissed.