GSB#2012-3523, 2012-3524, 2012-3525, 2012-3526, 2012-3527, 2012-3528, 2012-3529,

2012-3530,2012-3531, 2012-3532, 2012-3533, 2012-3534, 2012-3536

UNION#2012-0102-0060, 2012-0102-0061, 2012-0102-0062, 2012-0102-0063,

2012-0102-0064, 2012-0102-0065, 2012-0102-0066, 2012-0102-0067, 2012-0102-0068,

2012-0102-0069, 2012-0102-0070, 2012-0102-0071, 2012-0102-0072, 2012-0102-0073

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Winter)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Children and Youth Services)

Employer

BEFORE

Randi Abramsky

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Sheila Riddell Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Counsel

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Benjamin Parry Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel

HEARING

January 16, 2015

Decision

Re Ability of Grievor to Participate in the Hearing

1The Employer has raised an issue concerning the ability of the Grievor to participate in the hearing in this matter.

2To that end, counsel for the Union contacted the Grievor’s doctor, and in a letter dated November 29, 2014, the doctor “strongly recommended” that the Grievor not be subject to any “face to face meeting[s]” with the Grievor’s “managers /staff.”

3There are fourteen grievances filed by the Grievor before the Board, which raise claims of harassment, discrimination and violation of the Grievor’s health and safety. Also at issue will be a number of harassment complaints that have been made against the Grievor. It is anticipated that the Grievor will be on the witness stand (in examination-in-chief and cross-examination) for many days.

4I find the doctor’s letter to be insufficient. It is unclear whether the Grievor is capable of testifying in this matter (including examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination) about the various claims and unclear as to which “managers/staff” it is recommended not be in any face to face meetings with her. This assessment is important for the Board to determine whether this hearing should go forward or be adjourned sine die until the Grievor is fully able to present her case, and what, if any, accommodations may be required.

5Consequently, counsel for the Union is ordered to obtain clarification from the Grievor’s doctor as to the following, by close of business on Jan. 30, 2015, if possible:

A) Is the Grievor able to fully participate in the hearing in this matter, which is anticipated to require her to spend numerous days on the witness stand on claims lodged by and against her?

B) To identify the “managers/staff” that the doctor is “strongly recommending” that she not have “face to face meeting[s]” with, and to clarify what is meant by face to face meetings (i.e., does it include incidental, hallway contact?

C) If the Grievor is unable to fully participate in the hearing, what, if any, accommodations would you recommend as necessary to allow her to do so?

6The date of Jan. 30, 2015 is set out above in order to enable the parties be able to utilize the hearing date of Feb. 5, 2015, which has been previously scheduled.