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 Ryder Wright Holmes Bryden Nam LLP Counsel

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Debra Kyle Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel

HEARING

June 3, June 27 and August 13 and 15, 2025

Decision

1There are before me several 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.

2The first day of hearing was May 10, 2019 followed by seven days of mediation that eventually proved unsuccessful. Following this, on October 19, 2022, the parties made opening statements on the merits. Examination in chief of the grievor commenced November 8, 2022, and concluded after fourteen further hearing days on May 3, 2024.

3During the April 2021 to October 2023 time period a number of administrative issues arose on various matters that were addressed by the parties over eight hearing days and that resulted in eight written interim decisions.

4Cross examination of the grievor by the employer commenced on May 7, 2024, and after four further days of hearing the employer brought forward a motion to the Board on June 3, 2024, to have the grievances dismissed on the basis of the grievor’s abuse of process. The parties then proceeded to make submissions on this matter after putting together a Joint Agreed Statement of Facts.

5It is the submission of the employer that the grievances should be dismissed on the basis of the grievor’s abuse of the arbitration process in the following ways. First, due to the number of hearing days that started late and were truncated due to various administrative and hearing issues being raised. Second, because of seven scheduled hearing days that were cancelled. Additionally, notes the employer, the grievor’s conduct has been disruptive to the hearing process with her wanting to have the hearing proceed on her terms. As a result of the foregoing, submits the employer, we are barely into the start of cross-examination of the first witness after twenty-four days from the start of hearing the parties’ opening statements of the grievances on their merits. Third, that the grievor failed to show at the start of the hearing on May 2, 2025, and appeared at the hearing almost an hour late and only after receipt of a telephone call from the employer that morning. May 2 had been scheduled as a continuation date for the cross-examination of the grievor by the employer.

6In support of its submission and argument, the Employer made reference to the following arbitral authorities: Re Budget Car Rentals Toronto Ltd. and U.F.C.W. Local 175 (Botan), (2000), (Davie), 87 L.A.C. (4^th); Re The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Finance) and OPSEU (Morsi), (2008), (Devins), GSB No. 2006-2683; Re OPSEU (Savdie) and The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Government Services), (2013), (Harris), GSB No. 2011-3785; Re Serco DES Inc. and USW, Local 9511 (Bartley), (2014), (Luborsky), 241 L.A.C. 194; Re OPSEU (Bremner) and The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Attorney General), (2021), (Misra), GSB No. 2017- 2916; Re Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care and Ontario Nurses’ Association (Pavlovych), (2021), (Gedalof), 2021 Can LII 39477; Re OPSEU (Di Matteo) and The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Health), (2021), (J. Johnston), GSB # 2016-0473; Re Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care and Ontario Nurses’ Association (Tian), (2021), (Gedalof), Can LII 88751; Re OPSEU (Sproule) and The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services), (2024), (McConnell), GSB # 2023-03235; Re Norton and The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Attorney General), (2024), (Kuttner), PSGB# P-2023-01398; Re OPSEU (Black) and The Crown in Right of Ontario (Liquor Control Board of Ontario), (2025), (McConnell), GSB# 2023-02547; and to Article 22 in the Collective Agreement re Grievance Procedure.

7It is the position of the Union that it is the events of May 2^nd that have given rise to this motion and submits further that the grievor is not responsible for her late arrival at the hearing of May 2^nd, 2025. It is the submission of the union that it is clear from the facts that the grievor did not know there was to be a hearing held on May 2^nd and that, once notified on the hearing day, she showed up within fifteen minutes. Further, submits the union, many of the other delays that have occurred during the hearing process have had little or nothing to do with the grievor’s conduct and do not warrant dismissal of the grievances. It is noted by the union that on those earlier hearing dates where matters did not proceed as scheduled, not all the issues raised came from the union. Additionally, the union notes that in approximately thirty hearing days, over almost three years, eight hearing days were used to address procedural matters with eight interim decisions written and issued. The union seeks the denial of these three motions put forward to dismiss all the grievances before the Board.

8In support of its submission and argument the Union made reference to the following authorities: Re OPSEU (Byabagamba) and The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Government & Consumer Services), (2016), (Dissanayake), GSB# 2014-4536; RE OPSEU (Watkins) and The Crown in Right of Ontario (Liquor Control Board of Ontario), (2022), (Gee), GSB# 2021-1479; Re OPSEU (D’Souza) and The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Solicitor General), (2023), (Banks), GSB# 2021-0575; Re OPSEU (Gilchrist-Duval) and The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Labour), (2015), (Dissanayake), 124 C.L.A.S. 205; Re OPSEU (Cupskey) and The Crown in Right of Ontario (Liquor Control Board of Ontario), (2019), (Parmar), GSB# 2013-2633.

9The submissions of the parties, and the authorities to which reference was made, have been carefully considered. We turn now to consider the issues raised in the employer’s submission. First, the number of hearing days truncated due to administrative and hearing issues being raised by the union has been considered. An examination of these hearing days shows that a variety of issues led to shortened hearing days including counsel discussing medical documents and procedural matters, a key hearing participant having to leave a hearing early, the parties addressing a possible settlement of the grievances, and a morning delay on account of partial computer accessibility issues. After reviewing the nature of the issues raised, and the length of time involved in discussing these matters, neither the conduct of the union nor the employer can be found to constitute an abuse of the arbitration process.

10The second matter raised by the employer in its submission is the thirteen scheduled hearing days that were cancelled. The cancelled days referenced fall in the twenty-five month time period between January 2023 and January 2025 during which seventeen hearing days actually did take place. The reasons for these cancelled hearing days are varied. Six of these cancelled dates arose from a change in union counsel at the firm with carriage of the grievances, with cancellation notices ranging from two months to eight months ahead of the scheduled hearing dates. These six cancelled dates were then replaced with six later newly scheduled dates. Three of these thirteen cancelled hearing dates were either due to illness of key hearing personnel on both the union and employer sides, or a family death. Finally, four scheduled hearing dates were cancelled by the parties on consent ahead of the scheduled dates, with two of these eleven months ahead, one five months ahead, with the third just two days prior. Upon review of these events I find that I am unable to reach the conclusion that these foregoing cancellations constitute an abuse of the arbitration process and, accordingly, do not warrant a dismissal of all the grievances before the board on the grounds of an abuse of process by the union.

11The third matter raised by the employer in its submission seeking a discharge of all the grievances before the Board is on the basis the grievor failed to show at the start of the hearing on May 2, 2025, and then appeared almost one hour late and only after receipt of a telephone call from the employer following the scheduled start of the hearing. The position of the employer is that all the grievances should be dismissed on the basis that the grievor’s conduct constitutes an abuse of the arbitration process.

12It is the position of the union that the grievor failed to receive notice of the May 2^nd hearing, and that her late presence at the hearing was not due to any fault of the grievor. It is the submission of the union that the grievor was not at the hearing by 10:00 a.m. simply because she didn’t know of the hearing, and that she did show promptly once she knew of the hearing. The union submits that there is no justifiable basis for the dismissal of these grievances because of the grievor’s late attendance at a hearing she did not know about until after the start time.

13In addressing this matter the parties proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts pertaining to the surrounding circumstances, along with supporting exhibits. These agreed facts that relate to the May 2, 2025 scheduled hearing date are set out below.

Scheduling of May 2, 2025 Hearing Date.

A hearing date was scheduled in this matter for January 14, 2025 but was rescheduled to May 2, 2025 with the consent of both parties.

a. In the course of the rescheduling of the hearing date, Union Counsel wrote to the Board on January 24, 2025. She advised the Board that the parties were available for a re-scheduled hearing on May 2, 2025 and asked the Board to advise whether it was available for a hearing on that date.

b. By way of email dated January 28, 2025, the Board advised that May 2, 2025 had been confirmed.

c. By way of email dated April 16, 2025, the Board provided an NOP for May 2, 2025.

Correspondence between Grievor and Manager Prior to May 2, 2025 Hearing Date.

13. For the hearing scheduled on May 2, 2025, the Grievor did not provide her manager a “heads up” that the hearing was scheduled and that she would be attending the GSB that day.

14. During the week of April 28, 2025, the email exchange below occurred between the manager and the Grievor in respect of the Grievor’s work schedule for the week of April 28, 2025:

a. that the Grievor requested and was approved to take April 30, 2025 off as vacation;

b. that because the Assistants are normally in the office 4 days a week, her manager scheduled her to be in the office on May 2, 2025;

c. the Grievor subsequently asked her manager whether she could work in the office on May 1, 2025 to provide coverage, and to work from home on May 2;

d. the Grievor’s manager approved the Grievor’s request to work in the office on May 1, and to work from home on May 2, 2025.

Notice to Grievor of May 2, 2025 Hearing Date.

15. Union Counsel has advised Employer Counsel that her office inadvertently omitted to send the Notice of Proceeding (“NOP”) issued by the GSB on April 16, 2025 to the Grievor.

16. At 2:57 pm on May 1, 2025, Union Counsel sent the Grievor an email. The email has been redacted; however, Union counsel has advised that she sent the Grievor the NOP to remind her that she was to attend the GSB hearing on the following day, May 2, 2025.

17. Union Counsel has advised she received no response from the Grievor to her May 1, 2025 email.

May 2, 2025 Hearing Date.

18. On May 2, 2025, the Grievor did not attend the GSB hearing as scheduled when it began at 10 a.m.

19. The Union advised the Board that the Grievor was not answering calls to her cell phone from the Union.

20. The Employer’s instructing client contacted the Grievor’s manager who advised the Grievor was working from home and that she needed fifteen (15) minutes before she could sign in.

21. The Grievor joined the hearing at approximately 10:50 am and spoke with the Union.

22. After speaking with the Grievor, the Union advised that the Grievor was having concerns about the nature of some of the information she has shared in this proceeding and particularly her personal information. The Grievor was seeking assurances that the information would not be shared beyond this proceeding for any purpose that is not necessary for this proceeding.

23. The Union reiterated that the Grievor was concerned about her privacy and that information through this proceeding could get back to the workplace in inappropriate ways.

24. The Union further advised the Board that the Grievor had drafted an email to the Union reflecting these concerns and thought she sent it; however, she had not sent that email but rather it had remained as a draft email in her inbox.

25. The Union advised the Board that the Grievor had thought that the matter would not proceed on May 2, 2025 because of the concerns she believed she had communicated, as set out above.

26. In light of the information set out above, on May 2, 2025, Employer counsel advised she would be bringing the instant motion to dismiss the grievances for abuse of process on the next scheduled day of hearing: June 3, 2025.

Events since May 2, 2025.

27. By way of email dated May 28, 2025, Union Counsel advised Employer Counsel that her office had inadvertently omitted to send the May 2, 2025 NOP to the Grievor in advance of Union Counsel’s May 1, 2025 email to the Grievor. She advised that the Grievor had not been notified that the May 2, 2025 hearing date had been confirmed. Union Counsel apologized to Employer Counsel for this error.

28. At the hearing on June 3, 2025, Union counsel advised the Board and Employer Counsel as follows:

(a) The Grievor has advised that Union Counsel’s email of May 1,2025 did not arrive in her email inbox until 12:35 a.m. on May 2, 2025, as shown in the screen shot of the Grievor’s email inbox attached.

(b) the Grievor has advised that she did not check her email inbox on the morning of May 2, 2025.

(c) The Grievor has advised that she was unaware of the hearing date until the morning of May 2, 2025 when she was contacted by her Employer about her attendance at the hearing.

29. Neither the Board nor the Employer was informed of any of the information set out at paragraph 27 above until June 3, 2025.

14The parties’ agreed facts of the events pertaining to the May 2, 2025 hearing day and the late appearance of the grievor at the hearing, and only after she had been contacted by phone and notified that the hearing was currently taking place, have been carefully considered. These facts disclose that the grievor was not notified prior to May 1, 2025 that the hearing was taking place on May 2, 2025. The documentation entered into evidence shows the emailed hearing notification that was sent to her on the afternoon of May 1, 2025 did not reach her computer inbox until the early morning hours of May 2, 2025. Further, the agreed statement of facts shows the grievor did not check her email inbox on the morning of May 2, 2025 prior to 10:00 a.m. As such, she was unaware of the existence of the May 2, 2025 hearing date until mid-morning on May 2, 2025 when she was contacted by her employer, following which she promptly joined the hearing.

15On the basis of the foregoing, I find the conclusion that must be reached in this foregoing matter is that the Grievor did not know in advance and ahead of the 10:00 a.m. starting time on May 2, 2025 that a hearing had been scheduled to take place on May 2, 2025. Accordingly, it must be found that the grievor did not abuse the arbitration process by not appearing at the hearing on May 2, 2025 ahead of the 10:00 a.m. start time. As such, the motion made by the employer to dismiss the grievances for abuse of process must be denied.

16Accordingly, and by way of summary, the three motions brought forward by the employer to dismiss all the grievances before this board must be denied for all the foregoing reasons.