GSB#2016-0473, 2016-1897, 2016-2205, 2017-0263, 2017-0264

UNION# 2016-0504-0007; 2016-0504-0008;

2016-0504-0010; 2017-0504-0001; 2017-0504-0002

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Di Matteo)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care)

Employer

BEFORE

Felicity D. Briggs

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Tim Hannigan Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Counsel

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Henry Huang Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel

TELECONFERENCE

May 24 and May 30, 2018

Decision

1Ms. Lilianna Di Matteo has filed a number of grievances that allege, amongst other things, harassment and unjust dismissal. Shortly before our first day of hearing the grievor requested that she be allowed to attend the hearing by way of teleconference. In this regard she provided a note from her physician that stated she was unable to attend our April 24, 2018, hearing date due to “medical reasons.”

2Although the Employer agreed on a without prejudice basis to have the grievor attend the first day of hearing by way of teleconference, it raised a motion at the conclusion of opening statements that any such arrangement be disallowed in the future.

3In an effort to determine this matter, this Board requested further medical information. On May 15, 2018, a decision was issued ordering the Union and the grievor to provide further medical information in this regard.

4On May 22, 2018, Mr. Hannigan provided to Mr. Huang and the Board an electronic copy of a note from the grievor’s family physician. The note stated, “The above needed to attend the proceedings via teleconferencing on 24/4/18 due to medical illness. This non-attendance is meant to continue beyond April 24/18 due to her anxieties and unable to speak in front of people. These restrictions are indefinite.”

5A conference call was then arranged to allow counsel to make any further comments regarding the grievor’s request to attend the hearing via tele-conference. The Employer’s view had not changed after reviewing the requested medical note. It was of the view that – given the nature of the issues in dispute in these proceedings – the grievor should be ordered to attend in person. The Union urged that the grievor be accommodated as set out by her physician.

6On May 30, 2018, the Board convened a teleconference and provided an oral ruling. As promised this is a short written decision setting out the ruling.

7After much consideration I am prepared to grant the grievor’s request to attend the hearing via teleconference. While I fully understand the Employer’s concerns regarding a full and fair hearing for all, the grievor has provided medical documentation establishing a sufficient medical need for accommodation by way of her attending the hearing via teleconference.

8During the teleconference with the parties, discussion took place to ensure – to the extent possible – that the grievor has all of the documents in her possession that will be touched upon in this matter so that the hearing can proceed without undue delays.

9Notwithstanding my finding at this time, it may happen that this decision will need to be revisited given the complicated issues in this matter.

10Finally, I note that the grievor has provided a will-say statement for her evidence in chief. She will almost immediately be cross examined which may cause some anxiety. While it is more difficult to monitor the grievor’s response in this regard, effort will be made to ensure ability to continue.