GSB# 2019-1387

UNION# 2019-0553-0002

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Sarai)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks)

Employer

BEFORE

Diane L. Gee

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Anjana Kashyap Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Erika Montisano Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel

HEARING

December 4, 2020

Decision

1This matter is a grievance filed on behalf of Omanpreet Sarai. The grievance reads, in part, as follows:

I grieve that the Employer has violated, but not limited to, Article 2 – Management Rights of the Collective Agreement, Article 3 – No Discrimination/Employment Equity of the Collective Agreement Article 22/22.121

Improper Classification of the Collective Agreement, the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act, Bill 168, and any mental health legislation/laws as well as Employer mental health policies by increasing my workload excessively. This increase in workload came with no financial compensation whatsoever. Furthermore, no consideration of the mental health impacts involved to myself, family, and overall work life balance were evident causing me undue stress. To add, new job tasks analysis and hazards analysis was performed in order to assess the impact of this excessive workload on my health and safety in the workplace.

2Particulars filed by the Union describe the grievance as follows:

These proceedings arise from a grievance filed by Ms. Sarai in respect of the Employer excessively increasing her workload by substantially altering her work duties and responsibilities, and by the Employer’s failure to provide adequate training.

3The Particulars are divided by headings. Under the heading “Vacation time difficulty” is the following:

22. Ms. Sarai has also encountered difficulty obtaining approval for vacation time, due to the rotational schedules of the labs. t the time of filing the grievance, she had made vacation requests to Jennifer Koene; receiving no response until it was too late to book her travel.

23. The Grievor requested time off in May 2019. She received an email from Ms. Koene stating that she will be contacted by Karen Irwin, Senior Tech in Microbiology Lab, as one day she requested conflicted with Karen’s vacation schedule. Now the Grievor is in a situation where she has to make sure there is coverage in both the Microbiology lab and the Molecular biology lab prior to taking a vacation.

24. There are added expectations placed on the Grievor to work on weekends and Statutory Holidays, if the designated staff in the Microbiology is on vacation. This was not included in the grievor’s job description.

4The Employer asks to have paragraphs 22 – 24 of the Particulars struck on the basis that difficulties getting vacation time and expectations to work on weekends and statutory holidays does not form part of the grievance.

5It is my determination that the paragraphs will not be struck. Had the intention of the paragraphs been to allege the Employer was in violation of the vacation or hours of work provisions of the collective agreement, I agree with the Employer such would be an improper expansion of the grievance. Such an allegation does not fall within the scope of the grievance. However, OPSEU submits that the paragraphs are intended to support the allegation that the changes to the Grievor’s work has resulted in her being overworked and experiencing stress. The paragraphs are, albeit tangentially, arguably relevant to this allegation and accordingly will not be struck.