[1996] OLRB Rep. July/August 635
0616-96-U; 0617-96-OH David Gazit, Applicant v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Responding Party v. George Brown College, Intervenor; David Gazit, Applicant v. George Brown College, Responding Party
BEFORE: M. A. Nairn, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: Harry Kopyto and David Gazit for the applicant; Gavin Leeb and George Richards for the Ontario Public Service Employees Union; S. C. Raymond, Regina Lapworthy, John Hardy and Cindy-Ann Thomas for George Brown College.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 19, 1996
Board File No. 0616-96-U is an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the "Act") alleging that the Ontario Public Service Employees Union ("OPSEU" or the "union") has violated section 76 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act ("CCBA") (the "section 96 complaint"). That section is substantially the same as section 74 of the Act and deals with what is referred to as a union's duty of fair representation. Board File No. 0617-96-OH is a complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act ("OHSA") alleging that George Brown College (the "College" or the "employer") has violated section 50(1) by disciplining and otherwise penalizing Mr. Gazit in violation of that Act (the "OHSA complaint").
The matters came on for hearing and the employer and OPSEU raised certain preliminary objections. I heard the evidence and representations of the parties on those issues and this decision deals only with the three preliminary matters raised. George Brown and OPSEU took the position that (1) the Board has no jurisdiction to deal with the OHSA complaint; (2) that, even assuming such jurisdiction, the Board should stay both matters as Mr. Gazit has outstanding complaints against both OPSEU and the employer before the Human Rights Commission concerning the same subject matter; and (3) the Board ought to exercise its discretion not to inquire into much of both complaints because of the unreasonable delay in bringing the complaints. This latter objection to the Board's proceeding incorporated an argument that certain matters raised were now moot and ought not to be pursued on that ground as well.
A considerable amount of documentary material was filed on the agreement of the parties. Other facts were agreed to. In addition, I heard evidence from Mr. Gazit with respect to his reasons for delay in bringing the applications. Both complaints arise out of the same set of circumstances; Mr. Gazit's alleged treatment by the College while employed as a clerk at the circulation desk of the College's library and the union's alleged response to that treatment. Mr. Gazit has also filed four human rights complaints; two against the College (dated June 28, 1995 and June 25, 1996) and two against OPSEU (dated February, 1996 and June 25, 1996); which complaints rely on the same allegations of misconduct.
In the section 96 complaint Mr. Gazit asserts that OPSEU has not acted in accordance with its statutory obligation in the handling of his grievances. The complaint details allegations going back to 1992. At the hearing, Mr. Gazit's representative made it clear that Mr. Gazit was seeking to have the Board order four grievances to arbitration. Earlier grievances are therefore not in issue, although Mr. Gazit would assert that the union's conduct in respect of those matters is indicative of its general treatment of him. Notwithstanding that issue, it is apparent that the remedy being sought is with respect to four grievances. Those were identified as follows:
(1) a grievance dated January 11, 1994 concerning an alleged unreasonable exercise of the employer's discretion in not removing a letter of discipline dated March 16,1992 from Mr. Gazit's file;
(2) a grievance dated January 20, 1994 concerning the employer's refusal to destroy the psychiatric report obtained in 1993;
(3) a grievance dated November 24, 1994 alleging harassment of Mr. Gazit by a supervisor, Mr. Hardy;
(4) a grievance dated August 9, 1995 concerning a memo dated July 21, 1995 to Mr. Gazit from Mr. Hardy.
It is the position of OPSEU and the College that the first three grievances have been settled and that the fourth grievance was never referred to arbitration and that it is too late now for Mr. Gazit to complain about that matter. The parties are agreed that a fifth grievance, dated May 5, 1995, concerning the appropriate classification of Mr. Gazit's position, remains outstanding.
The OHSA complaint asserts that Mr. Gazit encountered a number of difficulties in performing his job as circulation clerk from the outset of his employment. Those difficulties are described in his application as including:
(a) The Management of George Brown failed to provide him with necessary assistance to adequately perform his duties as a clerk at the circulation desk;
(b) the management of George Brown College failed to respond to legitimate complaints which he made to it regarding negative comments about the sexual orientation and marital status of persons working in the library including statements that the problem of one employee was that 'she is not married" and mocking the sexual orientation of another employee as well as sexist comments such as the use of expletive "bitch" by one employee at a female student;
(c) management permitted the Applicant to be given unfair, unreasonable and unfounded performance reviews and permitted those performance reviews to remain on the Applicant's personal file notwithstanding his protestations that they were unfair and biased;
(d) management continually ignored requests by the Applicant that fellow employees be restrained from making malicious and unfounded derogatory comments regarding the manner in which the Applicant was performing his work as a clerk at the circulation desk of the library;
(e) management failed to respond to complaints made by the Applicant regarding disparaging comments about the Applicant's age (he was 50 years old at the time that he commenced working for the Respondent) and regarding his taking time off during the Jewish high holidays.
- Mr. Gazit's complaint is that this conduct on the part of the College caused him stress and anxiety and he asserts that management's conduct as described constituted a workplace hazard under the OHSA. He further states that in reporting the incidents and their effect on his health and safety he was exercising protected rights under the OHSA. He asserts that by failing to take corrective measures the College was in breach of its duty under the OHSA to take all reasonable steps to protect the health and safety of a worker. Finally, he asserts that as a result of making complaints, the College has engaged in acts of reprisal against him, which included:
(a) management consciously and intentionally ignored the aforesaid conditions knowing that their ongoing maintenance would continue to aggravate the Applicant's state of health, isolate him from those who were the objects of some of his criticism and make it more stressful and difficult for him to perform his services adequately for the College;
(b) without limiting the generality of the foregoing, management of George Brown refused to hire additional staff to support circulation desk duties even though the work should more appropriately have been done by two full-time clerks;
(c) failing to ensure that the Applicant received the backup support from the library technicians employed in the library at appropriate times to assist as the demand dictated;
(d) refusing to reduce the Applicant's workload or job functions by transferring functions elsewhere. In fact, the College with the knowledge and under the direction of Hardy deliberately intensified the Applicant's workload in reprisal;
(e) moreover, while agreeing to provide assistance in the borrower registration and the production of library cards during peak intake periods, Hardy failed to enforce such an agreement;
(f) in response to requests for transfer of job functions, Hardy on behalf of management, redefined those jobs that the Applicant sought to have transferred as the exclusive responsibility of the Applicant thereby minimizing the already marginal assistance which the Applicant had and increasing his workload;
(g) Hardy repeatedly made unjustified, negative allegations regarding the Applicant's job performance, behaviour and attitude including wrongly suggesting that he did not manage his time properly after his initial complaints regarding his working conditions;
(h) library technicians and others working in the library soon became aware of Management's failure to respond to the Applicant's complaints and concerns. Management knew of this and therefore greatly reinforced the refusal of the rest of the staff to cooperate with and assist the Applicant in performing his duties as and when required. This resulted in his total ostracization, rendering him isolated and vulnerable to the stress induced by the conduct that was the subject matter of his complaints;
(i) vindictively characterized the Applicant as an intimidating and threatening person capable of violent behaviour without reasonable cause for so doing and causing a memorandum dated March 16, 1992 to be placed in the Applicant's personnel file to further intimidate him from efforts to protect himself from an unhealthy and unsafe, poisoned work environment;
(i) Management tolerated and encouraged technicians to carry out personal attacks and badgering of the Applicant to cause him pain, stress and humiliation with the ultimate goal of carrying out sufficient retaliation and intimidation to make him resign his position. This was done through ostracization, taunts, nasty pranks, contemptuous laughing, sneering, malicious gossip, banging his desk and unreasonable scrutiny of his behaviour and job performance. Such attempts to make his work life miserable was incessant; this behaviour occurred in one form or another day in and day out; week after week, for most of his 6 years of employment.
In its response to the OHSA complaint, the College asserts that as a result of certain actions and artwork of Mr. Gazit, it was of the view that it was necessary to obtain a psychiatric assessment to alleviate its concern about potential violent conduct, that Mr. Gazit agreed to undergo an assessment, and that subsequently, the College has attempted to respond, within its resources, to Mr. Gazit's various job-related concerns. It asserts that Mr. Gazit was provided a transfer, was given fair and objective performance reviews, and that he was laid-off in March 1996 as part of College-wide budgetary cutbacks.
The first fourteen paragraphs of particulars are identical in both complaints. The section 96 complaint goes on to allege that OPSEU either colluded with the College or failed to properly represent Mr. Gazit with respect to the issues raised.
In the OHSA complaint, Mr. Gazit seeks "all the relief requested in the grievances filed by him ...". Mr. Gazit's representative confirmed that he was seeking remedial relief from the Board in the OHSA complaint that the Board would not order in the section 96 complaint. He acknowledged that even if successful in the section 96 complaint, at best, the Board would order the four grievances to arbitration. It would be up to an arbitrator to determine whether Mr. Gazit would be entitled to the relief sought by the grievances. Inherent in either remedial request was a request to set aside the settlement entered into on Mr. Gazit's behalf.
1 will deal first with the section 96 complaint. Mr. Gazit wants his grievances to proceed to arbitration for the remedies requested therein, but he also wants the Board to order those same remedies in respect of his OHSA complaint. Both the grievances and the OHSA complaint are concerned with the same alleged misconduct of the employer. This kind of duplicate litigation makes no sense. In effect, Mr. Gazit wants two opportunities to try to obtain the remedies he seeks; to pursue the grievances should he not obtain the remedies through his OHSA complaint.
Section 50(2) of the OHSA contemplates that a worker may have a matter under section 50(1) dealt with by the Board or by arbitration under a collective agreement. All of the conduct complained of in the grievances is conduct that is raised by the OHSA complaint. On April 16, 1996, Mr. Gazit's representative wrote to OPSEU advising that Mr. Gazit "is electing to pursue his remedy under the [OHSA] pursuant to section 50(2) before the Ontario Labour Relations Board and not as part of the arbitration process". Mr. Gazit has indicated he wants these matters dealt with as an ORSA complaint.
Had OPSEU abandoned these grievances on receipt of that advice there would have been no basis for Mr. Gazit to complain that OPSEU should pursue the grievances to arbitration. He would have been held to his choice of forum and OPSEU would have been relieved of any further responsibility in respect of the handling of the grievances by virtue of that choice. Mr. Gazit has made his choice. He does not want to have the matters raised by the grievances dealt with at arbitration. He has chosen to pursue those issues and remedies under the OHSA complaint. The filing of the section 96 complaint does not "undo" his decision, particularly when he continues to pursue the OHSA complaint.
In addition, paragraph 18 of the OHSA complaint states:
The Applicant acknowledges that he has five grievances presently outstanding against the Respondent arising from the same or similar circumstances described in this Application. He elects to receive relief and compensation for the acts of reprisal of the Respondent as set out in the aforesaid grievances through this Application and does not seek compensation or relief for any other conduct of the Respondent which he will continue to seek through the grievance and arbitration process.
Mr. Gazit has again indicated that the issues raised by the grievances are to be dealt with in his OHSA complaint. Whatever the latter words of that paragraph mean, Mr. Gazit cannot reserve some right to proceed to arbitration to deal with the same issues once those issues have been litigated elsewhere. Simply put, he cannot have "two kicks at the can". There is no basis for entering into an tnquiry about OPSEU's conduct in the handling of the grievances when the remedy that would flow, that is, that these matters proceed to arbitration, is one that Mr. Gazit has indicated he has relinquished in order to pursue the matters under the OHSA.
Ought Mr. Gazit to be entitled to pursue the complaint against the union to argue that it acted inappropriately in settling three of his grievances? Although not pleaded by Mr. Gazit I will deal with that "secondary" issue. OPSEU received Mr. Kopyto's advice concerning the election to proceed under the OHSA on the same day it entered into a settlement of the grievances. Mr. Gazit had been aware of the proposed settlement for some time and had disagreed with it. OPSEU had earlier advised him that it was going to enter into the settlement in any event, based on legal advice provided to Mr. Gazit and reported to OPSEU and OPSEU's further consideration of the matters.
That settlement achieves the remedy sought in the first two grievances. The letter of discipline that was the subject matter of the first grievance is removed from Mr. Gazit's file. The College further agreed to return all copies of the psychiatric report to Mr. Gazit, the essence of the second grievance. Mr. Gazit acknowledged at the hearing that he had received that material from the College. The settlement goes on to acknowledge that the College has no control over any records retained by the attending psychiatrist. Further there is an agreement that should the College require a copy of the report in order to defend itself against the human rights complaint, it can seek to obtain a copy. However, it is agreed that that matter may be the subject of arbitration prior to the release of the report. The third grievance was withdrawn. The subject matter of that third grievance is part of the first human rights complaint filed by Mr. Gazit against the College.
To the extent that any issue might remain as to whether or not OPSEU violated section 76 of the CCBA by entering into the settlement, with the remedial purpose of having the settlement set aside, I am of the view that no labour relations purpose would be served by entering into the inquiry. The settlement accomplishes the remedy requested for two of the grievances. Although the union withdrew the third grievance as part of the settlement it was clear to both parties to the settlement that the underlying subject matter of that grievance was not "dead"; that is, Mr. Gazit was still raising the issue of Mr. Hardy's alleged harassment of him as part of his human rights complaint. Withdrawing the grievance at worst, only eliminated another "double forum" problem. I am not persuaded that it is appropriate to enter into an inquiry for the purpose of setting aside the settlement when that settlement produces positive results for Mr. Gazit and does not otherwise interfere with his ability to pursue his remaining concerns in another forum.
The fourth grievance is referred to only indirectly in the settlement, in that the parties to the settlement acknowledge that, except for the classification grievance, there are no other grievances outstanding. OPSEU and the College submit that I ought to exercise the discretion not to inquire into that aspect of the complaint by reason of delay. Mr. Gazit asserts that any delay is reasonable and ought not to preclude him from having the matter heard. There was no real dispute about the Board's approach to delay in the exercise of its discretion in cases such as this. I was referred to the Board's decisions in The Corporation of the City of Mississauga, [1982] OLRB Rep. March 420, MirzaAlam, [1994] OLRB Rep. June 627, and Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113, unreported decision of the Board dated January 18, 1994, and the cases cited therein.
It was only at the hearing of this matter that Mr. Gazit identified that he was seeking a remedy for this fourth grievance. The grievance was filed on August 9, 1995. It alleges that Mr. Hardy "as per memo dated July 2 1/95 has unjustly exercised his rights under Article 3.1 of the collective agreement" (the management rights clause). The remedy sought is that all record of the memo be destroyed and a cease and desist order issue in respect of any further harassing actions. That memo deals with an incident where Mr. Hardy alleges that Mr. Gazit permitted a student to enter the library when it was closed and Mr. Gazit's alleged response to Mr. Hardy when he asked Mr. Gazit to deal with the matter.
The grievance was not referred to arbitration. There was a Step 1 response to the grievance from Mr. Hardy to Mr. Gazit dated August 11, 1995. If one calculates the delay in raising this issue from the time the complaint was filed it is a delay of over nine months. If that time is calculated from the point when the parties were aware that Mr. Gazit was seeking a remedy in respect of that grievance the delay is some eleven months.
Mr. Gazit explains his delay on the basis that he was inured to waiting and to long time periods by his experience with the grievance and arbitration process in the past. However, one must consider this explanation carefully. Mr. Gazit acknowledged he was familiar with the grievance process, having filed eight grievances in his some six years of employment, and he asserts that he was concerned about the union's treatment of him throughout this period. He agreed that he was aware of the three steps to the grievance procedure in the collective agreement and that Step 2 required a grievor to present his grievance within seven days from the Step 1 response. Article 18.2.1 of the collective agreement states that:
If the grievor fails to act within the time limits set out at any Complaint or Grievance Step, the grievance will be considered abandoned.
Mr. Gazit agreed he did not take his grievance to his Department Head at Step 2. Mr. Gazit asserted that he told his steward that he was unhappy and assumed it would go to the next step. He asserted that he contacted his steward in January or February 1996 to ask of the Step 2 and that the steward attempted to justify Mr. Hardy's response and then asked him if he wanted to get Mr. Hardy fired. If Mr. Gazit had concerns about the union's handling of this grievance those concerns were more than crystallized at that stage. More importantly he had waited some six months to raise an issue that he assumed the union was dealing with, although he was aware that the Step 2 process was in his hands. I have difficulty accepting Mr. Gazit's assertion of delays in the process when he acknowledges that he is familiar with the time periods set out in the collective agreement for the grievance process. The delay in the process occurs after the grievance process, from the time the matter is referred to arbitration until it reaches a hearing. OPSEU also relies on the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act and the absence of any statutory authority in an arbitrator under that Act to relieve against time limits as an indication of the importance of meeting the time limits in the grievance process and the effect of Article 18.2.1.
Mr. Gazit has raised his concerns repeatedly to the union in other respects and in other forums. Mr. Gazit was aware he could file a complaint before the Board, having done so in May, 1995. However, Mr. Gazit could not reasonably assume that this grievance was in any way raised by that complaint as the grievance occurred later in time. In February 1996 Mr. Gazit filed a human rights complaint against OPSEU. Throughout this period Mr. Gazit had been dealing with Mr. Richards, Senior Grievance Officer from OPSEU. In a letter to Mr. Richards dated August 21, 1995, Mr. Gazit refers to this grievance as another human rights violation by the College, but it is not raised again in any correspondence with the union. It is clear from the correspondence between Mr. Gazit and OPSEU that Mr. Gazit was aware that this grievance did not form part of the matters referred to arbitration and was not included in the proposed settlement. OPSEU makes no reference to the grievance in its correspondence to him concerning his grievances.
It does appear that Mr. Gazit was aware that the union believed the grievance to be resolved by Mr. Hardy's Step I response to the grievance. While I find Mr. Hardy's response to be somewhat ambiguous, that response does indicate that the letter in question was not put on Mr. Gazit's file, indicating that it was not intended to be disciplinary. While Mr. Gazit wanted the letter destroyed, it would be the case that the College would not have been able to rely on the incident it complains of if it was not intended to be disciplinary.
Overall I am persuaded that in the circumstances I ought to exercise my discretion not to inquire into this aspect of the complaint for reasons of delay. While the Board in other cases may have inquired into matters where a similar period of delay had occurred, the factors that the Board has set out in The Corporation of the City of Mississauga, supra, taken as a whole point to a different result in this case. The reasons for the delay are not persuasive in light of Mr. Gazit's knowledge of both his statutory and collective agreement rights and his evident concern with the union's handling of matters. He testified only that he told the steward he was unhappy with the Step I result and assumed it would go forward. He did not assert that the steward provided any assurance or other indication on which Mr. Gazit might have reasonably relied in making that assumption, in circumstances where he knew he was responsible for pursuing the matter at Step 2. He waited six months and presumably learned that the union had not pursued the matter. Again, there is no evidence he received any assurance the union would do anything. To the contrary, he received an explanation that appeared to accept the employer's position. Yet again he waited to file this complaint, while at the same time raising other concerns and pursuing other issues with Mr. Richards. By the time this matter is clearly raised the College and OPSEU have entered into a settlement in which they agree that no grievances, other than the classification grievance, remain outstanding. There is certainly no evidence to suggest that the College had reason to believe at any time that this matter remained outstanding.
I am also not persuaded that there are other sufficient labour relations reasons for entering into an inquiry concerning the union's conduct in respect of the fourth grievance. The remedy sought is to have the matter of the July 21, 1995 memo dealt with at arbitration. Mr. Gazit has filed a human rights complaint dated June 25, 1996 which alleges that he has been reprimanded in a discriminatory fashion and has been provoked and taunted by persons including Mr. Hardy. He asserts that these actions were taken as a reprisal against him for filing the earlier human rights complaint. That second human rights complaint appears to incorporate the same allegations as contained in the grievance.
In addition, if this grievance were to proceed to arbitration, and if Mr. Gazit were successful, the likely remedy would be an order removing the memo from Mr. Gazit's file. The Step 1 response states that the memo was never placed in Mr. Gazit's file. To arbitrate that issue would provide no greater real remedy than already exists. To the extent that Mr. Gazit seeks to assert that the issuing of the memo was part of an ongoing program of harassment by the College, that issue is much more appropriately dealt with by his broader human rights complaints. To deal with it at arbitration would require the calling of all of the evidence that would go to support an alleged pattern of misconduct; yet at the end of the day, an arbitrator, assuming the allegations were founded, would be limited to a remedy concerning only the memo and perhaps a broader declaration. The net result would have been a hearing as broadly based as the human rights complaint would contemplate, but with a much more limited remedial opportunity than Mr. Gazit seeks. (See generally Mirza Alan, supra.)
I therefore dismiss the section 96 complaint.
The allegations contained in the OHSA complaint deal with events alleged to have occurred as early as 1991. Mr. Gazit alleges that "harassment and discriminatory treatment in the manner described and set forth herein constitutes a hazard that presents a risk to the health and safety of an employee". He asserts that he suffered reprisals for bringing these issues to the attention of management. Assuming, and specifically without finding, that the Board has jurisdiction to enter into this inquiry under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, I am satisfied that the Board ought not to do so for the following reasons.
An OHSA complaint is dealt with by the Board pursuant to section 50(3) of the OHSA which incorporates the authority and discretion of the Board to inquire into a complaint under section 96 of the Act. There is good reason to adopt the same labour relations principles in dealing with complaints under the OHSA as the Board has long utilized in respect of unfair labour practice complaints. The Board is concerned with the ongoing relationship between the parties. It has long been a truism that 'labour relations delayed, is labour relations denied". In matters of health and safety, the need for speedy resolution of outstanding disputes is self-evident. That is so not just to address any actual potential for danger to workers but to address any issue of reprisals in the workplace for raising health and safety issues, in order that workers are assured that such issues can be raised without fear of retaliation.
Mr. Gazit asserts that he delayed in filing an OHSA complaint because he was attempting to address the issues through other avenues, he did not have legal counsel, and the stress and anxiety he was suffering inhibited his ability to file. I do not accept these reasons as sufficient to warrant the Board entering into an inquiry with respect to a large portion of Mr. Gazit's complaint. Even assuming that Mr. Gazit was labouring under stress he was able to complain to the President of the College, the Council of Regents of the College, the Ombudsman, the Ministry of Education, the Human Rights Commission, and to the Board. There is no evidence to suggest that his medical condition was such that he could not have pursued a complaint under the OHSA to the Board.
If Mr. Gazit felt that the alleged reprisals were as a result of his raising health and safety concerns, there is no adequate explanation for his not pursuing the matters sooner. The evidence establishes that Mr. Gazit is quite capable of asserting his rights and concerns. The Board has long held that a failure to obtain advice or a decision to pursue other avenues is insufficient to overcome unreasonable delay. It is apparent from Mr. Gazit's own evidence, taken together with his correspondence to various parties throughout this period, that he did not see the actions of the College as matters involving health and safety issues. His correspondence consistently addresses the issues as human rights concerns. This was the case even after his separation from employment. Mr. Gazit testified that when he learned of his termination (the College's position is that he was laid-off) he felt it was a reprisal for filing the human rights complaint. The first reference to the OHSA appears to be the letter from Mr. Gazit's representative dated April 16, 1996 to OPSEU, advising OPSEU of Mr. Gazit's election to proceed under the OHSA complaint.
Mr. Gazit filed his first human rights complaint on June 28, 1995. This complaint was filed on May 27, 1996. There is simply no reason that Mr. Gazit could not have filed this complaint sooner. All of the matters raised were within his knowledge, and all events to June 1995 are raised by the first human rights complaint.
The College acknowledged that some of the matters raised by this complaint are timely and I agree. Mr. Gazit's separation from employment occurred in March 1996. On a review of the pleadings and the documents filed in support of this complaint, the matter of the July 21, 1995 memo from Mr. Hardy is also included as part of this complaint. As I have already reviewed, Mr. Gazit did not pursue that matter through the grievance procedure. There is no sufficient reason to allow that matter to be revived when it was not initially pursued. I am satisfied that all aspects of the OHSA complaint ought properly to be dismissed on the ground of delay except for any issue surrounding Mr. Gazit's separation from employment in March 1996.
I am further satisfied that it is appropriate to stay the hearing of any such remaining complaint until Mr. Gazit's human rights complaints against the College have been determined. The second human rights complaint was filed on June 25, 1996 and asserts that the termination from employment was a reprisal for having filed the first human rights complaint.AII of Mr. Gazit's concerns are, at root, his assertion that he has been subjected to an ongoing pattern of discriminatory treatment by reason of his age, creed, and sex. His concern about a "poisoned work environment" all stem from what he has consistently asserted are human rights violations. That is manifestly confirmed by a review of his correspondence to all of the various bodies and parties he contacted or dealt with over the some five years in question.
Mr. Kopyto offered to withdraw the human rights complaints at the hearing. He asserted a loss of confidence in that process. I cannot accept that assertion where Mr. Gazit has filed two further recent complaints, one each against the College and OPSEU. Offering to withdraw also assumes that Mr. Gazit has that option under the Commission's process. Even assuming that the withdrawal of those complaints might be a factor in my determination, the complaints were extant when the issue was put before me. Mr. Gazit is forum shopping. It is inappropriate and an enormous waste of public and private resources. All of the concerns that Mr. Gazit has raised are before the Human Rights Commission. The remedies that he seeks are also much more within the ambit of the Commission's usual and often broader, remedial work. (See generally, Mirza Alan, supra.)
In summary, the section 96 complaint is dismissed. The ORSA complaint, except any matter concerning Mr. Gazit's separation from employment in March 1996, is also dismissed. The remaining portion of the OHSA complaint, that is, the allegation that Mr. Gazit was terminated from employment as a reprisal in violation of section 50(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act is hereby stayed pending the outcome of Mr. Gazit's human rights complaints against the College dated June 28, 1995 and June 25, 1996.
I would note that it is unnecessary to deal with the jurisdictional issue at this stage. Should the remaining matter be brought back before the Board, that issue remains to be determined.