GSB#2013-3000, 2013-3657

UNION#2013-0340-0048, 2013-0340-0060

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Crossfield)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Finance)

Employer

BEFORE

Dan Harris

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Laura Johnson Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Roslyn Baichoo Ministry of Government Services Legal Services Branch Counsel

HEARING

June 26, 2014

Decision

1The Union has filed two grievances on behalf of the grievor, Sandra Crossfield. The first grievance came about as a result of the grievor having run a "water club" on behalf of her fellow employees in which she supplied bottled water for a fee. Concerns were raised about a purported misappropriation of funds. This led to the grievor being suspended with pay while the employer investigated. That suspension lasted 20 months. When the grievor returned to work she received a letter of counsel. The union alleges that the lengthy suspension had a severe effect on the grievor's health, both mental and physical. This led to the first grievance, which was referred to the Board and scheduled for hearing before a different Vice-Chair on July 23, 2014.

2When the grievor returned to work from her suspension, she was declared surplus. Under the surplusing provisions of the collective agreement, the grievor had a number of options from which she could elect. Her election was to be made by completing a form. There may be a dispute about whether she was provided with the form or had to obtain it herself. She gave the form to the employer two weeks after the deadline within which the form was to have been returned. The employer refused to honor the choices she had made on the form. The union has filed a grievance on her behalf, which was scheduled for hearing before me on June 26, 2014. The union alleges that the grievor was unable to appreciate the importance of returning the form in a timely fashion because of the effects on her of the lengthy suspension.

3On June 26, 2014 the union brought an application to consolidate the two grievances. The employer resisted that application, primarily on the basis that it had not received particulars of the allegations, which it had requested as early as April 22, 2014 from a different OPSEU representative than counsel before me on this consolidation application. It said that OPSEU’s submissions made before me, as to the overlap in the facts between the two grievances, was the first detailed explanation provided to it by the union.

4Having heard the submissions of the parties, it is my view that there is a sufficient commonality in the facts and legal questions that the two grievances should be heard together. One example is that the union has indicated that it will be calling medical evidence dealing with the grievor's mental and physical health arising from the lengthy suspension, and that such evidence would have been required in each hearing had the two hearings proceeded independently. Hearing the grievances together will avoid inconsistent findings of fact, provide savings and efficiencies procedurally and would not occasion any prejudice to the parties. As the union bears the onus on both grievances, it will proceed first on all issues.

5I must conclude by saying that had the union responded to the employer's request for particulars, made in April 2014, the need to hear this application may have been avoided.

6The union is to provide full particulars of the two grievances to the employer, following which the parties are to produce to each other all arguably relevant documents. This matter is to be scheduled for hearing by the Registrar, following which the parties are to agree on a schedule for the provision of particulars and production. If there is any dispute as to the requirements of or fulfillment of these orders of the Board, the matter may be scheduled for a further appearance to resolve the same.