GSB# 2013-4461; 2015-1805; 2015-2202; 2016-0749; 2016-2199; 2016-2200; 2016-2201; 2016-2202; 2016-2203

UNION# 2013-0104-0003; 2015-0104-0002; 2015-0104-0005; 2015-0104-0006; 2016-0104-0002; 2016-0104-0003; 2016-0104-0004; 2016-0104-0005; 2016-0104-0006

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Vrantsidis)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Education)

Employer

BEFORE

Deborah J.D. Leighton

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Andrew Mindszenthy and Jesse Gutman Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officers

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Felix Lau Treasury Board Secretariat Labour Practice Group Counsel

HEARING CONFERENCE CALL

November 13, 2015; January 14 and October 13, 2016; January 12, April 5, April 6, April 12, June 8, June 14, July 21, November 23, 2017; February 8 and February 27, March 14, October 25, December 11 and December 12, 2018; January 30, February 13, July 9, July 10, September 5, October 30, November 6, November 27, December 11, 2019; June 26, July 15, July 22, July 29, August 5, August 6, and August 11, 2020 June 22, 2023

Decision

1Mr. Doug Vrantsidis, a Systems Officer 3 (SO3) at the Robarts School for the Deaf, grieves that the ministry discriminated and harassed him because he is a Deaf person, creating a poisoned workplace in breach of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 19 and the collective agreement. The hearing went forward with the aid of two expert American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters over five years. There is extensive oral and documentary evidence before me. Much of the admissible evidence is not in dispute.

2The parties wish to enter settlement discussions and this decision may help that process. It is a bottom-line decision, with reasons to follow, if the parties are not successful in coming to a global settlement on the grievances before me and further outstanding grievances filed during and since this hearing.

3Some context is necessary. Mr. Vrantsidis was born with a significant degree of deafness and grew up learning to read lips. He is able to use his voice and his limited hearing, with hearing aids to communicate with hearing individuals in certain conditions. His ability to communicate orally in English depends on the person speaking with him, his or her voice and style of speaking and factors such as background noise. He needs ASL interpretation for group meetings.

4The grievor began work at Robarts in 1995 and up until 2010, by all accounts loved his work and was a valued employee. In 2010 a new manager took over the IT unit and a classification review of all the systems operators did not result in a promotion for the grievor in 2011. The management of the IT unit is separate from the management of the school.

5The central issue here is whether there is sufficient evidence before me to find that the grievor’s deafness was a factor in the ministry’s treatment of him between 2010 and 2016, thereby constituting a breach of his human rights and the collective agreement. The union advanced two positions in this case. First, that the ministry discriminated and harassed the grievor, arguing that the employer’s mindset after 2010 was that hearing individuals were superior to the Deaf, who should as much as possible fit in to a hearing world – a concept that it identified as Audism. Further, in the union’s opinion the grievor’s work and responsibilities were systematically eroded over these years because he is a Deaf person. The second position is that certain incidents occurred, which discriminated against the grievor by essentially treating him as a hearing employee, thus creating a poisoned workplace for him -- as an example, requiring him to use a telephone when his capacity to do so was very limited.

6The ministry's position is that the grievor became a disgruntled employee after a job reclassification, which did not result in a promotion for him. For some of the upper management at the school, the consensus was that the grievor’s complaints and grievances were nonsense. The ministry categorically denies any discrimination and harassment or of being liable for Audism.

7Having carefully considered the evidence and the submissions of the parties, I have decided to grant the grievances in part. I must note here that I did not rely on the Provincial Schools Report (1991) as I found it not to be relevant or helpful to the issues I was deciding in this case. Nor did I rely on certain evidence proffered in reply that was out of scope for reply evidence.

8Thus, I am persuaded that on the balance of probabilities the evidence on several of the incidents grieved, support a finding that the employer is liable for discrimination and harassment which created a poisoned workplace for the grievor and is therefore deserving of damages for breach of the Code and the collective agreement.

9However, regarding the allegations that management is liable for Audism, I find that I am not persuaded of this. To prove Audism, or any form of discrimination, there does not need to be evidence of intent to discriminate. Unconscious bias can drive behaviour. But on the evidence before me I cannot conclude that the ministry's behavior was coloured by a belief that hearing individuals are superior to the Deaf.

10Lastly, while the grievor’s job duties changed considerably over the time frame between 2010 and 2016, there is not enough evidence to prove that this occurred because he is a member of the Deaf community.