GSB# 2021-0716; 2021-0717; 2021-0718; 2021-0719; 2021-0720

Union# G-049-21-BOE; G-045-21-BOW; G-044-21-BOW; G-048-21-BOW; G-046-21-BOW

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Amalgamated Transit Union - Local 1587 (Juteram et al)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Metrolinx)

Employer

BEFORE

Janice Johnston

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Simon Blackstone Jordyn Gooden Ursel Phillips Fellows Hopkinson LLP Counsel

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Bonnie Roberts Jones Rayaz Khan Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP Counsel

HEARINGS

September 4, 9, 11, 25 and October 9, 2025

Decision

1This is a discharge case which involves five Grievors. The five Grievors are: Justin Juteram (“Juteram”), Mark Pelley (“Pelley”), John Edson (“Edson”), Snjesko Radovic (“Radovic”), and Paul Sousa (“Sousa”).

2Metrolinx is an Agency of the Province of Ontario, operating GO Transit, the UP Express and PRESTO. GO Transit has been in operation since 1967. It is now the regional public transit service for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, operating numerous train lines and bus routes which carry 70 million riders annually. ATU, Local 1587 is the bargaining agent for the bargaining unit which included the Grievors.

3This case has a long history. An arbitrator at the GSB issued a decision reinstating the Grievors, on July 20, 2023, which was reviewed by the Divisional Court. The Court issued a decision dated April 2, 2024 quashing the decision of the arbitrator and remitting the matter back to the GSB to be heard by a different arbitrator. The decision of the Divisional Court was also appealed. It was upheld by the Court of Appeal for Ontario on June 6, 2025. I am the arbitrator agreed to by the parties to deal with this case for a second time.

4At the outset the parties agreed to proceed via section 9 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act (“CECBA”) which incorporates section 50 of the Ontario Labour Relations Act (the “LRA”) with minor changes that do not affect the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator once appointed. The expedited procedure found in Section 50 of the Labour Relations Act provides in part:

S. 50(1) Consensual mediation-arbitration - Despite any grievance or arbitration provision in a collective agreement or deemed to be included in the collective agreement under section 48, the parties to the collective agreement may, at any time, agree to refer one or more grievances under the collective agreement to a single mediator-arbitrator for the purpose of resolving the grievances in an expeditious and informal manner.

(6) Mediation - The mediator/arbitrator shall endeavour to assist the parties to settle the grievance by mediation.

(7) Arbitration - If the parties are unable to settle the grievance by mediation, the mediator/arbitrator shall endeavour to assist the parties to agree upon the material facts in dispute and then shall determine the grievance by arbitration.

(8) Same - When determining the grievance by arbitration, the mediator/arbitrator may limit the nature and extent of evidence and submissions and may impose such conditions as he or she considers appropriate.

5I engaged in extensive mediation discussions over multiple days with the parties. Unfortunately, we were unable to reach agreement. Accordingly, the parties agreed to have me determine this matter by arbitration.

6There is no dispute that at the time of the discharge of the five Grievors, that Metrolinx had in place a Workplace Harassment and Discrimination Policy (the “Policy”). On December 4, 2020, the President and CEO of Metrolinx delivered a message to all Metrolinx employees which outlined the steps that Metrolinx had taken to foster a safe and inclusive workplace. In this message, it was reiterated that any act of harassment or discrimination would not be tolerated by Metrolinx. On March 15, 2021, another letter was sent to all Metrolinx employees which reinforced Metrolinx’s zero tolerance stance on workplace harassment and discrimination and outlined the steps that had been taken by Metrolinx to educate all employees.

7Metrolinx conducted an investigation into alleged misconduct by the Grievor’s. All of the Grievors were found to have engaged in sexual harassment contrary to the Policy and Pelley, Sousa and Radovic, were also found to have engaged in harassment contrary to the Policy. The employment of Juteram, Edson and Radovic was terminated on April 30, 2021 and on May 3, 2021, Pelley and Sousa were terminated.

8In Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v CUPE (1979), 23 L.A.C. (2d) (Arthurs), a list of factors was provided to assist in the determination as to whether the disciplinary penalty of discharge imposed by the employer, should be upheld as appropriate in all of the circumstances, or reduced. Included in the list is the frank acknowledgment of misconduct by the Grievor, the past record of the Grievor and the Grievor’s future prospects for likely good behaviour.

9The conduct of the Grievors in this case was egregious. It was extremely offensive and the comments made about female co-workers were shameful and reflected poorly on their character. The conduct of the Grievors constitutes workplace sexual harassment and clearly is deserving of significant discipline. The issue I must decide is whether or not the conduct warranted termination. All of the Grievors have apologized for their conduct, recognized that the comments made were inappropriate and expressed regret for having made them. At the time of their discharge the Grievors had between six and nine years seniority.

10I have carefully considered the evidence and submissions of the parties in this case and have taken into account the arbitral jurisprudence on the issue of termination for the misconduct engaged in by the Grievors. I have come to the conclusion that reinstatement is appropriate. However, this should not be seen as a condonation of their conduct which is deserving of a lengthy suspension. A four (4) week suspension for Pelley, Sousa, and Radovic and a five (5) week suspension for Juteram and Edson will be substituted for the termination.

11Accordingly, I direct Metrolinx to reinstate the Grievors with full service and seniority and with compensation, minus mitigation and the disciplinary suspensions. The details with regard to the return to work by the Grievors is remitted back to the parties to determine.

12In the event that there are any difficulties with regard to the interpretation or implementation of this award I shall remain seized.