GSB#2013-3579

UNION#2014-0220-0002

Additional grievors in Appendix “A”

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Martin et al)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community and Social Services)

Employer

BEFORE

Ian Anderson

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

David Wright Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Counsel

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Felix Lau Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel

HEARING

July 16, 2015

Decision

1These grievances relate to the workload of Caseworkers employed by the Ministry of Community and Social Services to handle Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”) files. It is alleged that in imposing this workload the Ministry is in breach of Article 9 of the collective agreement (the health and safety provision).

2The Ministry takes the position that the grievances do not make out a prima facie case for a breach of the collective agreement, and brought a preliminary motion to that effect. For the purposes of hearing that motion, the parties agreed that the Union would file a Statement of Particulars with respect to “representative grievors”, selected by the Union, in various categories.

3There is little disagreement between the parties as to the principles applicable to a motion alleging the particulars of a grievance fail to make out a prima facie case. In order to succeed, the moving party, in this case the Ministry, must establish that the “facts asserted in support of a grievance, if accepted as true, are not capable of establishing the elements necessary to substantiate the violation alleged”: Couture, 2011 OGSB minicounsel 54, (Dissanayake). Arguments or conclusions do not constitute allegations of fact. Accordingly, they need not be accepted as true for the purposes of a no prima facie case motion.

4The Ministry argues that “claims” and statements of “evidence” also do not constitute allegations of fact for the purposes of a no prima facie case motion, citing Seguin, 2012 OGSB minicounsel 20 (Briggs) at para. 38 and Belanger, 2006 OGSB minicounsel 201 (Harris) at p. 10 respectively. With respect, this argument is based on a misreading of these cases. In Seguin, the “claim” in question was a legal conclusion (that the employer had acted in an arbitrary manner) and devoid of particulars (see para. 36). At para. 38, the Board commented that its inclusion amongst other particularized facts did not transform it into a fact. In Belanger, the description of the proposed evidence listed topic areas but was devoid of any particulars: see paragraph 6 on page 9. It was this “evidence” the Board described as not constituting “particulars” of the union’s case at page 10. In my view, therefore, nothing is gained by characterizing a statement as a “claim” or “evidence”. What matters is whether the statement in question constitutes an assertion of a fact.

5The Union notes that in Evangelista, 2011 OGSB minicounsel 83 (Harris) the Board stated that it was not appropriate to weigh the quality of the proposed evidence in determining whether there was a prima facie case: see para. 11. The Union asserts that as a result, for example, I would be required to accept as true the assertion that the moon is made of blue cheese. With respect, I disagree. In Evangelista, the proposed evidence was capable of belief. That is not the case with the Union’s hypothetical example. As I noted in Bharti, 2015 OGSB minicounsel 45 at para. 10:

In Nash v. Ontario (1995), Source decision, 27 O.R (3d) 1 the Ontario Court of Appeal held that for the purposes of determining whether or not a plaintiff’s pleadings made out a prima facie case, alleged facts that were patently ridiculous or incapable of proof need not be accepted as true.

6The question is whether the asserted facts, taken as a whole, constitute particulars capable of supporting the violation of the collective agreement alleged. As the Union argues, the words “capable of supporting the violation” are of some significance. What matters for the purposes of the no prima facie case motion is whether the party responding to the motion, in this case the Union, has articulated a legal theory which, on the facts it has particularized, could reasonably support a conclusion that there is a violation of the collective agreement. Therefore, the particulars are to be assessed against the responding party’s theory of the case. Whether that theory is correct need not be determined at this stage in the proceedings. Provided the responding party’s theory is reasonable and it has provided particulars which, if true, would result in a finding of a breach on the application of that theory, the motion should be dismissed.

7In this case, simply stated, the legal issue is when workload can give rise to a breach of Article 9, the health and safety provision of the collective agreement. This is not a new issue. The parties agree that in certain circumstances an excessive workload can give rise to a breach of Article 9. To some extent they disagree, however, on what the necessary circumstances are. There is no suggestion, however that the Union’s theory with respect to those circumstances is not reasonable and for the purposes of this motion I accept it as correct.

8The Union’s particulars consist of 95 paragraphs. Broadly stated, the Union’s particulars allege that as a result of a series of changes implemented by the Ministry since 2009 (notably a reorganization of the ODSP known as “Modernization”, commenced in 2009; the introduction of the Active Case Management Strategic Framework (the “Framework”) in 2011; and, most recently, the implementation of a new information management system called the Social Assistance Management System (“SAMS”) in 2014), the workload of Caseworkers has increased to the point that it has become so excessive as to be psychologically stressful. In addition, the particulars allege that SAMS has significantly increased the number of key strokes and mouse work required of Caseworkers in the performance of their duties. It is alleged that this has led to an increase in physical injuries to Caseworkers. It is alleged that as a result the workload of Caseworkers has caused recognizable medical problems to some Caseworkers and that it is reasonably foreseeable that it will cause recognizable medical problems to other Caseworkers.

9On the basis of these particulars, the Union argues that the Ministry is imposing a real and substantial risk of harm on the Caseworkers. Given that, the Union argues the onus switches to the Ministry to justify the reasonableness and necessity of imposing that risk, including that it is inherent to the position of Caseworker. The Union argues that it need not show the opposite for the purposes of establishing a prima facie case. In any event, the Union notes that its particulars include a reference to the experience of caseworkers employed to administer the Ontario Works program. The Union alleges that those caseworkers have less than one half the case load of the Caseworkers who administer the ODSP and that those caseworkers have received much greater support throughout the various changes to the programs with the result that their workload is not excessive. The Union argues this demonstrates that it is neither reasonable nor necessary to impose the existing workloads on the Caseworkers who administer the ODSP. In the result, the Union argues that in imposing this workload on the Caseworkers, the Ministry is failing to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of the Caseworkers. Accordingly, the Union argues that the Ministry is in breach of Article 9 of the Collective Agreement (the health and safety provision).

10The Ministry argues that the Union’s particulars fail to allege a health effect in relation to two groups of the grievances and that therefore they cannot succeed. I disagree. In its particulars, the Union has alleged that it is reasonably foreseeable that recognizable health problems will be caused for these groups of grievors. For the purposes of this motion, I accept this allegation as true. On the Union’s theory of the case, this would give rise to a breach of Article 9.

11The Ministry argues that the Union’s particulars fail to establish that the Caseworkers have an excessive workload because they fail to establish a baseline against which additional work could be assessed. I disagree. For example, the Union’s particulars assert a significant increase in workload in comparison to the workload established by Modernization.

12The Ministry argues that the Union’s assertion that the workloads are excessive is a “conclusion” or a “claim”. I agree that it is a conclusion. It is one, however, which is capable of being reached on the other particulars asserted by the Union with respect to the increase in workload over that established by Modernization.

13The Ministry argues that paragraph 26 constitutes a statement of proposed evidence and therefore cannot be considered for the purposes of the prima facie motion. That paragraph reads:

Excessive workloads, and stress related with such workloads, are well known to contribute to a series of health problems. The Union reserves the right to call expert evidence to establish the link.

For reasons stated above, the use of the word “evidence” in this paragraph is irrelevant. The first sentence is an assertion of fact forming part of the particulars of the Union’s case. The second sentence is at worst anticipatory: should expert evidence be required on this fact, the Union reserves the right to call it.

14The Ministry argues that while paragraphs 5 to 25 constitute allegations of fact, they do not establish a breach of Article 9 of the collective agreement. I disagree with the premise of this argument. As argued by the Union, those paragraphs cannot be viewed in isolation. They describe the increase in workload which the Union asserts took place from the introduction of Modernization through to the implementation of the Framework. They relate directly to the Union’s theory that the workload is excessive.

15More generally the Ministry disagrees that the workload of the Caseworkers is excessive. However, for the purposes of this motion I am required to assume that the facts particularized by the Union are true. I am unable to say that those facts are incapable of supporting the conclusion that the workload is excessive. The Ministry argues that in any event the workload and other stresses identified by the Union are inherent to the position of Caseworker and that any risk of harm is both reasonable and necessary. That may prove to be the case on the evidence. However for the purposes of this motion I must treat the Union’s particulars as true. Leaving aside the Union’s argument that the onus is on the Ministry to prove that the risk is reasonable and necessary, the Union’s particulars with respect to the different experience of the Ontario Works caseworkers are capable of supporting the conclusion that the workload and stresses faced by the ODSP Caseworkers are neither reasonable nor necessary. More generally, the Union’s particulars, if assumed to be true, are capable of supporting the conclusion that there has been a breach of Article 9. Whether the Union will be able to prove those facts and whether I will reach the same conclusion having heard all the evidence and full argument is another matter altogether.

16For all of the foregoing reasons, the Ministry’s motion that the Union has failed to plead a prima facie case is dismissed.

17The parties are directed to contact the Registrar to schedule continuation dates in this matter.

Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 12th day of August 2015.

Appendix A

GSB Number

Grievor Name

Union File Number

2013-3581

Van Zon, Stephanie

2014-0220-0004

2013-3977

Hobbs, Lisa

2014-0368-0051

2013-3978

Hendry, Janice

2014-0368-0050

2013-3979

Ricketts, Janet

2014-0368-0015

2013-3980

Fox, Ashly

2014-0368-0016

2013-3981

King, Donna

2014-0368-0017

2013-3982

McQuaid, Gloria

2014-0368-0018

2013-3983

Reparon, Luanne

2014-0368-0019

2013-3984

Furness, Brandy

2014-0368-0020

2013-4082

Seidel, Sandra et al

2014-0102-0007

2013-4215

Archambault, Deborah

2014-0601-0003

2013-4216

Craig-Ricard, Sheila

2014-0601-0004

2013-4217

Lederer, Robert

2014-0601-0005

2013-4218

Kucher, Issac

2014-0601-0006

2013-4219

Labelle, Natalie

2014-0601-0007

2013-4220

Forster, Jane

2014-0601-0008

2013-4221

Gilbert, Sharon

2014-0601-0009

2013-4222

Dyment, Sharon

2014-0601-0010

2013-4223

Mannarino, Victor

2014-0601-0011

2013-4224

Sharpe, Marietta

2014-0601-0012

2013-4225

Kearns, Kathleen

2014-0601-0013

2013-4226

Gallant, Lise

2014-0601-0014

2013-4227

Rooley, Shelley

2014-0601-0015

2013-4228

Poitras, Guylaine

2014-0601-0016

2013-4365

McKean, Barbara

2014-0368-0041

2013-4366

Paquin Belle-Isle, Guy

2014-0426-0009

2013-4367

Dicaire, Mario

2014-0426-0010

2014-0074

Sikora, Jessica

2014-0586-0003

2014-0075

Knight, Derek

2014-0586-0004

2014-0076

Kassam, Mansoor

2014-0586-0005

2014-0077

Damonze, Chantal

2014-0586-0006

2014-0078

Treganowan, Christine

2014-0586-0007

2014-0079

Cheung, Ching Lam Joyce

2014-0586-0008

2014-0080

McColman, Rhona

2014-0586-0009

2014-0121

Lord, Lorraine

2014-0586-0010

2014-0122

Signorile, Michelle

2014-0586-0011

2014-0123

Sparks, Timothy

2014-0586-0012

2014-0124

Du, Julie

2014-0586-0013

2014-0126

Mirigliani, Rosemary

2014-0586-0015

2014-0127

Dunn, Ed

2014-0586-0016

2014-0128

Salvagna, Carmelo

2014-0586-0017

2014-0129

Watkins, Pamela

2014-0586-0018

2014-0130

Passa, Antonella

2014-0586-0019

2014-0131

Mancini-Canale, Rosanna

2014-0586-0020

2014-0132

Dileo, Alayne

2014-0586-0021

2014-0133

Strong, Ron

2014-0586-0022

2014-0134

Martin, Debra

2014-0586-0023

2014-0135

Steenson, Tom

2014-0586-0024

2014-0136

Melicano, Dawn

2014-0586-0025

2014-0137

Bernardo, Barry

2014-0586-0026

2014-0138

Colasante, Teresa

2014-0586-0027

2014-0139

Mendez, Melinda

2014-0586-0028

2014-0140

Chu, Hung-Cheung

2014-0586-0029

2014-0141

McBride, Julie

2014-0586-0030

2014-0142

Pszczolkowski, Alicia

2014-0586-0031

2014-0143

Villamayor, Patricia

2014-0586-0032

2014-0144

Vassell, Pauline

2014-0586-0033

2014-0145

Amos, Jeffrey

2014-0586-0034

2014-0146

Weinberg, Risa

2014-0586-0035

2014-0147

Hwang, Daniel

2014-0586-0037

2014-0148

Manful, Daniel

2014-0586-0038

2014-0149

Dabirian, Marsha

2014-0586-0039

2014-0150

D'Souza, Angela

2014-0586-0041

2014-0173

Peneder-Binks, Gisele

2014-0586-0036

2014-0174

Flowers-Villegas, Michelle

2014-0586-0040

2014-0176

Marcoux, Shantelle

2014-0586-0043

2014-0179

Kaye-Mitchell, Roxanne

2014-0586-0047

2014-0181

Mawani, Haseena

2014-0586-0050

2014-0182

Morgan, Easton

2014-0586-0053

2014-0183

Catsanos, Catherine

2014-0586-0054

2014-0184

Morano, Silvana

2014-0586-0055

2014-0185

Jackson, Yeolanda

2014-0586-0056

2014-0186

Gavieres, Yvonne

2014-0586-0058

2014-0206

Fajardo, Noel

2014-0586-0059

2014-0207

Lei, Hong

2014-0586-0060

2014-0208

Georges, Nadia

2014-0586-0061

2014-0209

Khera, Patti

2014-0586-0062

2014-0210

Lesnik, Stephanie

2014-0586-0063

2014-0211

Kraakman, Cindy

2014-0586-0064

2014-0212

Reyes, Geraldine

2014-0586-0065

2014-0213

Rahaman, Abdool

2014-0586-0066

2014-0214

Guya, Maria

2014-0586-0067

2014-0215

Kong, Phillip

2014-0586-0068

2014-0216

Douglas, Andy

2014-0586-0070

2014-0217

Bennett, Tara

2014-0586-0071

2014-0218

Abraham, Anthony

2014-0586-0073

2014-0219

Teemul, Dayanand

2014-0586-0074

2014-0220

Juan, Marci

2014-0586-0075

2014-0221

Francis, Chantale

2014-0586-0076

2014-0222

Hill, Janice

2014-0586-0077

2014-0223

Fic, Monica

2014-0586-0078

2014-0224

Ricardo, Elaine

2014-0586-0079

2014-0225

Chan, Karen

2014-0586-0080

2014-0226

Prasad, Nalini

2014-0586-0081

2014-0227

Visram, Yasmin

2014-0586-0083

2014-0228

Alexander, Gerald

2014-0586-0085

2014-0229

Langevine-Hinds, Joanne

2014-0586-0086

2014-0230

MacLean, Sheryl

2014-0586-0087

2014-0231

Walsh, John

2014-0586-0089

2014-0232

Ferguson, Claudette

2014-0586-0090

2014-0233

Nirmalan, Saru

2014-0586-0092

2014-0234

Haye, Hyacinth

2014-0586-0093

2014-0235

Thandacheri, Sue

2014-0586-0094

2014-0236

Gordon, Karen

2014-0586-0095

2014-0237

Hopkins, Deborah

2014-0586-0096

2014-0238

Amante, Raymond

2014-0586-0097

2014-0239

Kingdon, Michael

2014-0586-0098

2014-0240

Gallo, Mary

2014-0586-0101

2014-0241

Dinicolo, Pamela

2014-0586-0102

2014-0242

Ali, Shameeza

2014-0586-0103

2014-0243

Wrzal-Kosowski, Margaret

2014-0586-0104

2014-0244

Harrison, John

2014-0586-0105

2014-0245

Graham, Jermaine

2014-0586-0106

2014-0255

Persad, Vishnu

2014-0586-0107

2014-0256

Hart, Gabriella

2014-0586-0108

2014-0302

Mann, Tina

2014-0586-0044

2014-0303

Yao, Susan

2014-0586-0049

2014-0304

Assadourian, Hristo

2014-0586-0051

2014-0305

Shirley, Evadne

2014-0586-0052

2014-0306

Caton, Lindsay

2014-0586-0057

2014-0307

Narayan, Usha

2014-0586-0069

2014-0308

Yee, Jose

2014-0586-0072

2014-0309

Irani, Mabel

2014-0586-0082

2014-0310

Marshall, Sheila

2014-0586-0084

2014-0311

Domingue, Kathryn

2014-0586-0088

2014-0312

Fox, Evelyn

2014-0586-0091

2014-0313

Pagniello, Tony

2014-0586-0099

2014-0315

Latour, Kathy

2014-0586-0109

2014-1013

Treidlinger, Ben

2014-0449-0006

2014-3103

Ali, Narissa

2014-0586-0113

2014-3104

Charles, Jillian

2014-0586-0114

2014-3105

Cronheimer, Jennifer

2014-0586-0115

2014-3106

Lascano, Cristina

2014-0586-0116

2014-3107

Marin, Maria

2014-0586-0117

2014-3108

Pantzoures, Mary

2014-0586-0118

2014-3109

Perez, Cintia

2014-0586-0119

2014-3110

Scott, Lynda

2014-0586-0120

2014-3259

Kendell, Lyn

2014-0310-0043

2014-3260

Hord, Ken

2014-0310-0044

2014-3261

Boon, Susan

2014-0310-0045

2014-3262

Broadworth, Ryan

2014-0310-0046

2014-3263

Bruyns, David

2014-0310-0047

2014-3264

Daly, Amanda

2014-0310-0048

2014-3265

Daly, Janice

2014-0310-0049

2014-3266

Erazo, Liliana

2014-0310-0050

2014-3267

Gaudet, Line

2014-0310-0051

2014-3268

Gravill, Brent

2014-0310-0052

2014-3269

Gimera, Susan

2014-0310-0053

2014-3270

Harding, Rosemary

2014-0310-0054

2014-3271

Honigan, Carlene

2014-0310-0055

2014-3272

Khawaja, Shagufta

2014-0310-0056

2014-3273

Lanois, Ashley

2014-0310-0057

2014-3274

McDonald, Kathy

2014-0310-0058

2014-3275

Price-Morris, Sondra

2014-0310-0059

2014-3276

Rasmussen, Meagan

2014-0310-0060

2014-3277

Rosher, Carol

2014-0310-0061

2014-3278

Taylor, Kelly

2014-0310-0062

2014-3279

Tuck, Cynthia

2014-0310-0063

2014-3280

Turner-Clark, Janice

2014-0310-0064

2014-3281

Vander Kooij, Lisa

2014-0310-0065

2014-3282

White, Kathy

2014-0310-0066

2014-3283

Woodhouse, Ryan

2014-0310-0067

2014-3506

Boodlal, Kay et al

2014-0222-0003

2014-3507

Botelho, Stephen

2014-0222-0004

2014-3508

Bywater, Maryann

2014-0222-0005

2014-3509

Clarke, Alicia

2014-0222-0006

2014-3510

Dunne, Bernice

2014-0222-0007

2014-3511

Geminiuc, Mimi

2014-0222-0008

2014-3512

Lavigne, Pauline

2014-0222-0009

2014-3513

Maiuri, Josephine

2014-0222-0010

2014-3514

Melanson, Dara

2014-0222-0011

2014-3515

Milne, Joanne

2014-0222-0012

2014-3516

Miles, Susan

2014-0222-0013

2014-3517

Montoya, Raquel

2014-0222-0014

2014-3518

Pampano, Debra

2014-0222-0015

2014-3519

Ruppert, Susan

2014-0222-0016

2014-3520

Theriault, Sylvie

2014-0222-0017

2014-3521

Zikos, Angela

2014-0222-0018

2014-3626

Union

2014-0999-0138

2014-3734

Hayes-Wright, Cindy et al

2014-0308-0012

2014-3735

Tatton, Betty et al

2014-0455-0016

2014-3789

Hoffman, Lanna

2014-0447-0005

2014-3839

Williams, Sharon et al

2014-0222-0020

2014-3932

Quackenbush, Beverly et al

2014-0123-0009

2014-4221

Chevrier, Kerri et al

2014-0615-0008

2014-4486

Cousineau, Patrice et al

2014-0426-0030

2014-4487

Dicaire, Mario

2014-0426-0031

2014-4488

Girard, Carmen

2014-0426-0032

2014-4489

L'Herault, Roxanne

2014-0426-0033

2014-4490

Martens, Ginette

2014-0426-0034

2014-4491

Nadon, Melissa

2014-0426-0035

2014-4492

Paquin Belle-Isle, Guy

2014-0426-0036

2014-4503

Haukins, Heather et al

2015-0368-0029

2014-4657

Delwo, Diane et al

2015-0615-0001

2014-4658

Hogan, Giselle

2015-0615-0002

2014-4659

Kutschke, Gail

2015-0615-0003

2015-0387

Muir, Janice

2015-0368-0132

2015-1258

King, Donna

2015-0368-0030

2015-1259

McKean, Barbara

2015-0368-0031

2015-1260

Reparon, Luanne

2015-0368-0032

2015-1261

Muir, Janice

2015-0368-0033

2015-1262

Furness, Brandy

2015-0368-0034

2015-1263

Hobbs, Lisa

2015-0368-0035

2015-1264

Tapp, Diane

2015-0368-0036

2015-1265

Richardson, Nicole

2015-0368-0037

2015-1266

Koren, Dawn

2015-0368-0038

2015-1267

Fox, Ashly

2015-0368-0049