GSB# 2018-3149; 2019-0060; 2019-0540; 2019-0541; 2019-0542; 2019-0597; 2019-0598; 2021-0464

UNION# 2018-0585-0026; 2019-0585-0001; 2019-0585-0004; 2019-0585-0005; 2019-0585-0006; 2019-0585-0007; 2019-0585-0008; 2021-0585-0001

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Ramsook-Lall)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development)

Employer

BEFORE

David R. Williamson

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Laura Johnson Ontario Public Service Employees Union Ryder Wright Holmes Bryden Nam LLP Counsel

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Debra Kyle Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel

HEARING

May 26, 2023

DECISION

1There are before me eight grievances filed by the Union on behalf of the Grievor, Ms. Indira Pamela Ramsook-Lall. There is a cluster of grievances dated from December 12, 2018 to April 17, 2019, plus a further one dated April 9, 2021. In various ways these grievances allege the Grievor has been subjected to workplace harassment, bullying, discrimination, reprisal, and Employer refusal to accommodate.

2In relation to these allegations the Union has provided the Employer with an amended Statement of Particulars consisting of 93 paragraphs of events, assertions, and allegations, plus remedies sought, and a disclosure request made to the Employer. The original Statement of Particulars of 118 paragraphs was amended by way of a Decision rendered by the instant Arbitrator dated June 21, 2022, which struck out the original paragraphs numbered 2-26 that referenced work-related matters for the period 2009 through 2015.

3The hearing date of May 26, 2023, was the second day of the Grievor's examination-in-chief. In giving evidence Ms. Ramsook-Lall made brief reference to three matters related to her allegation of having been in a poisoned work environment and caught in the middle of issues between her co-worker Ms. Carrington and her manager Mr. McGowan. The matters referenced pertained to a scent and perfume issue in the workplace, threats made against herself and Mr. McGowan by Ms. Carrington, and putting in an accommodation request to have her desk moved away from Ms. Carrington's because her work environment was being poisoned by Ms. Carrington.

4On May 26, 2023 the Employer put forward a submission that the evidence given on these three foregoing matters should be struck from the evidence as none of these incidents were included in the list of particulars provided by the Union, are not directly related to Mr. McGowan, and noted that the Grievor had a substantial period of close to five years in which to particularize the incidents she wished to rely on. In the alternative, submits the Employer, the Grievor should be put on Notice that no further 'new events' are to be raised.

5It is the submission of the Union, in response, that Mr. McGowan wrongly saw the Grievor to be aligned with Ms. Carrington and which led to an animus against the Grievor which carried forward into subsequent events and decisions involving the Grievor. The Union puts forward and contends that animus is an important element of this case, that the matters the Employer seeks to have struck are examples of this animus, and that these three incidents help to explain the origins of this animus. The Union seeks to have the testimony of the Grievor on these three matters remain in evidence.

6The Union has submitted that these three matters are important to its case in relation to the matter of animus, and yet were only touched on briefly so far in the evidence. Given this, I am of the view that the Union should be afforded the opportunity to revisit these matters in examination-in-chief and adduce further evidence on these three matters. Likewise, the Employer too will be provided latitude to explore these matters further when it comes time for cross-examination.