GSB#2013-2789

UNION#2013-0362-0022

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Bharti)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Natural Resources)

Employer

BEFORE

Ian Anderson

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Billeh Hamud Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Jonathan Rabinovitch Ministry of Government Services Labour Practice Group Counsel

HEARING

June 24, 2014

Decision

1The Grievor holds a position with the Ministry of Natural Resources in Peterborough but resides in Ottawa. His grievance alleges that the Employer must permit him to work from Ottawa in order to accommodate certain practices of his religious beliefs. The Employer challenges the sincerity of the Grievor’s religious beliefs and does not otherwise accept that the Human Rights Code is engaged so as to give rise to a duty of accommodation (the “first issue”). Further, even if the Code is engaged, the Employer does not concede that the Code would require it to provide the accommodation sought by the Grievor (the “second issue”).

2On the agreement of the parties, the hearing of the first and second issues will be bifurcated. By July 15, 2014, the Union is to file full particulars with respect to all grounds of the Code which it says are engaged, along with copies of all documents upon which it will rely in support of its position. In doing so, the Union is to identify all witnesses it intends to call and for each witness provide a brief synopsis of his or her anticipated evidence. By September 9, 2014 the Employer is file all documents upon which it intends to rely in support of its position. By October 1, 2014 the Employer is to file a document in which it identifies all witnesses it intends to call and for each witness provide a brief synopsis of his or her anticipated evidence.

3The hearing with respect to the first issue is scheduled for November 12, December 4 and 11, 2014. Should the matter continue following the decision with respect to the first issue, any evidence heard with respect to the first issue may be relied upon for the purposes of the second issue.

4I am seized.