GSB# 2013-1169; 2013-1170; 2016-0302; 2016-2388; 2018-0102; 2018-0615

UNION# 2013-0424-0002; 2013-0424-0003; 2016-0424-0001; 2017-0424-0001; 2018-0424-0008; 2018-0424-0010

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Ranger)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Daniel Harris

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Craig Flood Koskie Minsky LLP Counsel

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Jonathan Rabinovitch Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel

HEARING

October 24, 2023

Decision

1The matters addressed in this decision begin with grievances filed in 2013 and after. There are two other grievances before me between these parties, involving this grievor, one filed in 2021 and one filed in 2022. The hearing procedure to be followed in the latter grievances was addressed in a decision dated August 17, 2023. For ease of reference, and given its brevity, that decision is set out in its entirety as follows:

1This decision deals with two grievances filed by OPSEU on behalf of Robert Ranger, who is employed by the Ministry of the Solicitor General at the Ottawa Centre Probation and Parole Office.

2Chronologically, the first grievance, dated November 17, 2021, relates to allegations of a failure to ensure a safe workplace and a poisoned work environment in breach of the Collective Agreement, the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Occupational Health and Safety Act. This grievance is OPSEU File No. 2021-0424-0002. Although it is before the Board, it had not been assigned to me as of August 17, 2023.

3The second grievance, dated March 16, 2022, relates to allegations that the employer breached the collective agreement and the Ontario Human Rights Code by not returning the grievor to work promptly enough from a leave of absence due to illness. This grievance is OPSEU File No.2022-0424-0001 and GSB File No. 2022-1666. It is the matter that was referred to me and scheduled for hearing by the Board on August 17, 2023.

4At the hearing on August 17, 2023 the parties agreed that I would hear and determine both grievances together. For the sake of clarity, they are not being consolidated.

5The parties' made representations with respect to the procedures to be followed in the hearing of these two cases. Having considered those representations, I hereby give the following directions:

a) Although the union bares the onus of proof, the employer will call its case first;

b) The parties are to exchange arguably relevant documents and provide particulars of their cases to each other;

c) The parties are to explore entering into an agreed statement of facts in order to expedite the hearing of these matters. The employer will present a proposed statement to the union for its consideration and as the basis for further discussion between the parties in order to try to reach agreement upon the salient facts;

d) It is acknowledged by the parties that I am hearing ongoing litigation between them dealing, in part, with the contentious work relationship between the grievor and a co-worker, Janine Sarrazin, which may, in part, also be raised by the facts in issue in these proceedings. Nonetheless, the facts in issue in the instant matters are to be limited to events that took place between July 12, 2021 and March 14, 2022, being the first day worked by a co-worker, Diane Cave, and the date that the grievor returned to work from the sick leave referenced in the second chronological grievance in these proceedings. Should such evidence advert to an event prior to this time-frame, its relevance and admissibility may be raised at that juncture as in the normal course of a hearing. However, subject only to the dictates of natural justice, this time frame is to be honoured;

e) Either party may contact me to arrange a meeting if necessary for my assistance by way of further directions or otherwise with respect to the foregoing.

2The agreement of the parties and the subsequent decision of August 17, 2023 only relate to the hearing together of the 2021 and 2022 grievances. It is not the case that they were to be heard with the instant (2013 et al) matters.

3Accordingly, the instant matters will proceed to their conclusion as in the normal course, subject to the following. Early on in these proceedings the parties addressed the procedural niceties that arise because, in some of the instant matters, the Union bears the onus and in others the Employer bears the onus. The procedure settled upon was that the Union would proceed first and call its evidence on those matters where it bears the onus. The Employer would then call its evidence in response to that of the Union and call its evidence on the disciplinary matters where it bears the onus. These proceedings are complete to this stage. Next, the Union may call its evidence in reply on those matters where it bears the onus. Its reply evidence, as is the norm, is restricted to issues arising out of the Employer’s case on those matters and is not to supplement the evidence it called in the first instance; that is, the Union is not to split its case. At that juncture the Union may also call any evidence in response to the Employer’s case on the disciplinary matters. Following the completion of that stage of the evidence, the Employer may call evidence in reply to the Union’s case on the disciplinary matters. Again, this is subject to the normal restrictions on the scope of reply evidence. Absent any proper need for rebuttal or sur-rebuttal evidence, these matters will then proceed to final submissions on the issues raised by all of the evidence.