GSB# 2017-2824; 2017-2825; 2017-2887; 2018-2689

UNION# 2017-0219-0018; 2017-0219-0019; 2017-0219-0017; 2018-0219-0002

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Hockley)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Education)

Employer

BEFORE

Sheri Price

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Daniel Anisfeld Koskie Minsky LLP Counsel

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Regina Wong Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel

HEARING

March 7, 2019

DECISION

1The Union filed a number of November 2017 grievances on behalf of the grievor alleging harassment on the part of the Employer. Those grievances, along with an October 2018 grievance alleging unjust discipline, are scheduled to be heard on their merits commencing on April 11, 2019.

2The Employer has requested additional particulars of the grievor’s allegations of harassment. Having heard the parties’ submissions on this issue on March 7, 2019, I find it appropriate to direct the Union to provide further particulars of the allegations to ensure that the Employer knows the case it has to meet.

3Specifically, on or before March 18, 2019, the Union is hereby directed provide the Employer with further particulars of the harassment allegations as follows:

a. With respect to the allegation that the grievor was subjected to a false accusation in mid-October 2015:

i. the names of the individuals, including any members of management, whom Mr. Witsell allegedly told that the grievor had taken cocaine in his office;

ii. particulars as to when and where the grievor had a drug test done, which proved that the accusation could not have been true;

iii. the names of the individuals to whom the grievor provided a copy of the drug test and particulars with respect to when he provided it;

iv. the names of the members of management who were allegedly made aware that Mr. Witsell had falsely accused the grievor and particulars with respect to when and how they were made aware; and

v. a copy of the drug test is to be produced to the Employer, if it exists or may be obtained by the grievor.

b. With respect to the allegation that the grievor has been singled out regarding the administration of sick days:

i. the dates of the sick days on which the grievor was required to provide sick notes;

ii. particulars with respect to the length of time the grievor was off sick on the occasions when he was required to provide sick notes;

iii. the names of the individuals who required the grievor to provide sick notes; and

iv. the names of other employees who were “similarly situated” to the grievor but were not required to bring sick notes.

c. Regarding the allegation that the grievor has been singled out with unfavourable shifts:

i. particulars with respect to the time period during which the grievor was allegedly given the least favourable shifts;

ii. the dates on which the grievor was scheduled to work back-to-back shifts;

iii. the dates on which the grievor was scheduled to work until 11:00 p.m. on the Thursday and to start at 7:30 a.m. on the Friday;

iv. the name(s) of the individual(s) who scheduled the grievor to work the above-noted shifts; and

v. the names of the other employees whom the grievor alleges were not scheduled to work these types of shifts.

d. Regarding the allegation that the grievor was forced to work nights before coaching basketball the following morning:

i. particulars with respect to the time period during which this scheduling occurred;

ii. particulars with respect to the time frame during which the grievor coached basketball, how often and at what time he coached;

iii. the names of any members of management to whom the grievor spoke and/or complained about his need to have a work schedule that accommodated his coaching; and

iv. particulars with respect to the basis for the allegation that Bob Manon’s coaching schedule was accommodated.

e. Regarding the allegation that the grievor’s reputation was damaged as a result of the Employer’s actions in October 2017:

i. the name of the “fellow employee” who told the grievor that his supervisor “Brandi” made certain derogatory comments about the grievor to his colleagues at a management meeting;

ii. particulars with respect to when the above-noted management meeting took place;

iii. further particulars identifying who “Brandi” is;

iv. the names of the “grievor’s colleagues” that were allegedly told this;

v. particulars with respect to how the grievor became aware that a photo or photos of him had been posted in the front administrative office;

vi. the names of any individuals that the grievor is aware saw the photo(s) in the office and when;

vii. particulars of what the grievor was told by the above-noted “fellow employee” about what security officers allegedly said about the grievor to employees and visitors to the school; and

viii. particulars with respect to the basis for the allegation that security asked other males on the grounds outside the residence whether they were the grievor.