GSB# 2017-2877; 2017-3316; 2018-2673; 2019-1281; 2019-1282; 2019-1283; 2019-1284; 2019-1419; 2019-1840; 2019-2920

UNION# 2017-0271-0016; 2017-0271-0017; 2018-0271-0011;2019-0271-0008;2019-0271-0009;2019-0271-0010;2019-0271-0011;2019-0271-0012;2019-0271-0013;2020-0271-0014

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Morgan)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Solicitor General)

Employer

BEFORE

Diane Gee

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Ed Holmes Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Counsel

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Peter Dailleboust Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Senior Counsel

HEARING DATE

October 9, 2019 and June 29, 2020 (via videoconference)

DECISION

1The grievor has filed the following 10 grievances:

• GSB#2017-2877; OPSEU#2017-0271-0016

• GSB#2017-3316; OPSEU# 2017-0271-0017

• GSB#2018-2673; OPSEU#2018-0271-0011

• GSB# 2019-1281; OPSEU#2019-0271-0008

• GSB#2019-1282; OPSEU#2019-0271-0009

• GSB#2019-1283; OPSEU#2019-0271-0010

• GSB#2019-1284; OPSEU#2019-0271-0011

• GSB#2019-1419; OPSEU#2019-0271-0012

• GSB#2019-1840; OPSEU#2019-0271-0013

• GSB#2019-2920; OPSEU#2020-0271-0014

2On October 19, 2019, the Union brought a motion to have all 10 of the grievances consolidated. I reserved my decision pending a day of mediation to be held on June 29, 2020. Mediation on June 29, 2020 did not result in a resolution and accordingly I hereby give my decision in respect of the Union’s motion to consolidate the 10 grievances.

3By email dated June 29, 2020 the Employer advised it would agree to have the 2017 and 2019 grievances consolidated together, but the Employer maintains that the 2018 grievance is separate and distinct as it pertains to a discrete issue of a special and compassionate leave request and a different manager was involved during this time period.

4The grievances filed in 2017 allege a failure on the Employer’s part to address workload issues. The grievances filed in 2019 vary but, generally speaking, include allegations of a failure to accommodate, discrimination, and harassment. As indicated above, the Employer has agreed that the 2017 and 2019 grievances are to be consolidated. The 2018 grievance contains the following Statement of Grievance:

I grieve that: contrary to Article 2.1 Management Rights (Inappropriate use of); Article 3.1 (No discrimination/Employment Equity); Article 49, Article 49.2 (Leave Special/Compassionate); Articles 20.10.1 (Voluntary Leaves);and any other related Articles, Acts, Policies, or Jurisprudence; (ie – Personal Emergency Leave under Employment Standards Act); the Employer is in violation of the above by denying me the ability to utilize any of a variety of these leave options for emergency family reasons on the following dates:

June 11, 12, 13, 15, 20, 21, 25 and 26, 2018.

The Settlement Desired in the 2018 grievance includes: “A written declaration from the employer that these discriminatory practices to cease going forward.”

5The Employer objects to the 2018 grievance being consolidated with the 2017 and 2019 grievances on the basis that it involves a discrete issue concerning a leave request made to a different manager. Having regard to the Statement of the Grievance and Settlement Desired as set out above, the 2018 grievance alleges, amongst other things, that the denial of a leave constitutes discriminatory treatment; discriminatory treatment is one of the allegations advanced in the 2019 grievances. The events underlying the allegations in the 2018 grievance occurred very close in time to those underlying the 2019 grievances and in between the allegations in the 2017 and 2019 grievances. The grievor would be prejudiced in her ability to advance her claim of discrimination if she were not permitted to raise the 2018 allegation in the hearing of the 2017 and 2019 grievances. Further, if the 2018 grievance were not consolidated, and thus heard on its own, there is a risk the Union would seek to call evidence of the discrimination that underlies the 2017 and 2019 grievances in order to support its case of discrimination in 2018. This would be inefficient and raises the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

6For the foregoing reasons, it is my determination that all of the ten grievances listed in paragraph 1 are to be consolidated.