GSB# 2004-2855, 2004-2857, 2005-2476, 2005-3698, 2005-3699
UNION# 2004-0582-0062, 2004-0582-0064, 2005-0582-0104, 2006-0582-0001, 2006-0582-0002
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Samsone)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFORE
Daniel A. Harris
Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
Richard Blair Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Barristers and Solicitors
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Paul Meier Counsel Ministry of Government Services
TELEPHONE CONFERENCE
May 1, 2006.
Decision
This is an application by the Union to consolidate GSB 2005-3698 and GSB 2005-3699 with the three matters presently before the Board, being GSB 2004-2855, 2004-2857 and 2005-2476. Submissions were made by teleconference hearing.
It is helpful to sketch out the basic factual and legal issues raised by each grievance, starting with the matters currently consolidated before the Board. It should be noted that those matters were consolidated by agreement of the parties resulting from the file review process.
GSB 2004-2855
This grievance is dated August 13, 2004 and reads as follows:
I grieve Management is in violation of the Collective Agreement including but not limited to Articles 2, 3, 9 and 21. I received a letter dated July 20, 2004 from Michael Stephenson. The contents of this letter were slanderous allegations directed towards myself which are false and unfounded. This letter was also sent to 2 other individuals and sent by another thus poisoning my environment in this Ministry.
GSB 2004-2857
This grievance is also dated August 13, 2004 and reads as follows:
I grieve Management is in violation of the Collective Agreement including by not limited to Articles 2, 3, 9 and 21. I received a letter dated July 20, 2004 from Michael Stephenson containing slanderous allegations directed towards myself. This letter was also sent to 2 other individuals and sent by another thus poisoning my environment in this Ministry.
Although the grievances appear to be the same, the Union says that 2004-2855 grieves against the contents of the letter while 2004-2857 grieves against the wide-distribution of the letter. Both claim the same relief:
Monetary Compensation
Full investigation of these and other allegations put against myself.
Written apology
Letter removed
Cease and desist of this bad practice of harassment by upper Management.
Full accountability and punishment put against the person or persons responsible for these ongoing issues.
GSB 2005-2476
This grievance is dated July 12, 2005 and reads as follows:
I grieve that Management (Rob Hamblin & Rose Buhagiar) has specifically but not exclusively violated Articles 2 & 3 of the Collective agreement. They have treated me differently and discriminated against me thus causing me to have a further poisoned work environment by not offering me the OM16 TRAINING due to my position in the Local.
The relief claimed is as follows:
Full OM16 Training ASAP
Overtime for all days training occurred
Management cease and desist of this bad practice of targeting me due to my position in the Local
GSB 2005-3698 and 2005-3699
These two grievances read as follows:
I Grieve that Management (OM16 Tom Angelidis) has specifically but not exclusively violated Articles 2, 3, 9 and 21 of the Collective Agreement as well as all other pertinent Articles and Legislation by making a threat of violence (death) against me while in the workplace on duty during a night shift on Saturday January 1st, 2005. I also Grieve that OM16 Huppmann has violated these same Articles as he was in the Shift Office and witnessed these comments when they were made and did nothing to protect me from this threat nor did he take appropriate actions to inform his Supervisor of the inappropriate comments or actions which Mr. Angelidis displayed thus causing me to be placed in a further poisoned work environment and jeopardizing my Health and Safety.
I Grieve that Management (Rob Hamblin, Rose Buhagiar, David Mitchell, Dan Stevens, James Mannerow) at the Toronto East Detention Centre as well as Senior Management (Iain Leithead, Gary Commeford, Mike Conry, Deborah Newman, Jan Jeffery’s, John Rabeau, Silva Minassian and Monty Kwinter) from 25 Grosvenor Street has specifically but not exclusively violated Articles 2, 3, 9, 21 and 32.17 of the Collective Agreement. The above people named have been and are aware that I was threatened with death by OM16 Tom Angelidis while in the workplace and did nothing to protect my health and safety due to the fact that Mr. Angelidis submitted an occurrence report where he denies that any such threat was ever made. Management has not conducted an official investigation and has accepted this falsified document and continues to contributed to an already proven poisoned workplace and allow this criminal behaviour to exist.
In short, the first grievance raises the serious allegation that the grievor received a death threat form one of his supervisors. Seemingly, the second grievance arose as a result of the grievor obtaining information that he believed corroborated the events of the first grievance.
The Submissions of the Parties
Essentially, the union submitted that all the grievances raise issues of discrimination and health and safety in the context of the grievor’s activity in the union. It said that there was an overarching issue of discrimination because of union activity that would be best dealt with by consolidating the grievances.
The employer submitted that there were no common issues of fact or law that would justify consolidation and the two new grievances. It was also submitted that they have not been through the steps of the grievance process, although, they have been referred to the Board.
Reasons for Decision
The GSB’s Rules of Procedure provide as follows:
- Consolidation of Cases
Where two or more proceedings are pending before the GSB and it appears to the GSB that,
(a) they have a question of law or fact in common;
(b) the relief claimed in them arises out of the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences; or
(c) for any other reason an order ought to be made under this rule,
the GSB, on such terms as it considers advisable, may abridge the time for placing a grievance on the hearing list, and may order that:
(d) the proceedings be consolidated, or heard at the same time or one immediately after the other; and/or
(e) any of the proceedings be stayed until after the determination of any other of them.
In my view, the two grievances sought to be consolidated with the three currently before me do not meet the test of the rule. The allegations set out in those two grievances are wholly distinct from those before me. They centre on a discrete episode involving different individuals than the other matters currently before me.
The purpose of consolidation is to make the best use of resources by saving time as well as reduce the risk of inconsistent findings. Given the distinct nature of the allegations in these two grievances, neither goal would be promoted by consolidation.
Accordingly, the union’s request to consolidate these two additional grievances is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 24th day of May, 2006