GSB# 2003-3265, 2004-1066, 2005-0288, 2005-1255
UNION# 2003-0234-0562, 2004-0234-0305, 2005-0234-0054, 2005-0234-0156
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Pace)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFORE
Loretta Mikus
Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
John Brewin
Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Simon Heath
Counsel
Ministry of Government Services
CONFERENCE CALL
November 21, 2005.
Decision
The grievor, Antonella Pace, filed a grievance alleging, among other charges, the Employer had condoned and fostered a poisoned work environment and a violation of the WDHP Policy. I was appointed to hear that grievance and our first hearing was in February of 2005. (GSB # 2003-3265) We have two more days scheduled in December and two in January of 2006.
In 2004 the grievor was suspended and she filed a grievance alleging unjust discipline. (GSB # 2004-1066) That grievance was to proceed before another Vice-Chair along with five other grievances filed by the correctional officers charged with inmate abuse. The grievor’s discipline does not arise directly from the alleged abuse but rather from her actions subsequent to it. It is my understanding that those grievances are not scheduled for a hearing until after the New Year and that the grievor’s complaint, since it is not directed towards the events giving rise to the five other grievances, will probably be heard after the five alleged abuse grievances.
In 2005 the grievor filed two additional grievances, one alleging unjust dismissal, the other a breach of her right to privacy. The Union brought forth a request to consolidate the discharge grievance with the harassment grievance before me and to have the discharge proceed on the days scheduled to deal with the harassment grievance.
Initially the Employer objected to the consolidation of those grievance but, in a conference call on November 21, 2005, agreed to the Union’s request on the condition that the previous discipline grievance also be consolidated with the dismissal and that the two grievances proceed in that order.
The Union objected on the grounds that joining these two grievances would unduly extend the hearing on the discharge which will prejudice the grievor since she is out of work.
It is my view that all four grievances be consolidated and be heard by me. There is obviously merit in the Union’s assertion that the discharge should be heard in a speedy and expeditious manner. However, I accept the Employer’s submission that its decision to terminate the grievor’s services was based on her record at the time which contained the suspension. If I were to find some cause for discipline in the discharge grievance, I would be unable to determine the appropriate penalty until the state of her discipline record had been determined by another Board. That could only frustrate the goal of a speedy hearing if the ultimate decision on her status has to await a determination on the merits of a grievance that has not been heard and, in fact, is not scheduled to be heard for at least two or three months after this hearing.
It is my view that the discharge grievance should proceed expeditiously but that, in order to make decisions in the context in which they occurred, the suspension grievance should precede the dismissal grievance. Since the facts giving rise to the claim of a breach of the grievor’s rights to privacy derive from the same facts as her dismissal grievance, it also makes sense that it be heard at the same time to avoid the necessity of another hearing on the same facts.
Therefore, it is the order of the Board that grievances # 2004-1066, 2005-0288 and 2005-1255 be heard together commencing on December 12 and 13, 2005 and that grievance # 2003-3265 be adjourned until the completion of those proceedings.
Signed at Toronto this 23rd day of November, 2005.