3230-98-U Perry Zolis, Applicant v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation District 12 and The Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, Responding Party v. Toronto District School Board, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Brian McLean, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 27, 2000
[1]. The materials filed in connection with this application are lengthy and, unfortunately, somewhat difficult to decipher. It is not clear that the only two issues are those raised in the responding party’s response. Under these circumstances it is difficult to determine with certainty that the application does not disclose a prima facie breach of section 74 of the Act. Accordingly, the Board has decided to list this application for consultation, but only a limited range of issues, being:
(a) whether Mr. Zolis’ sick bank was reimbursed in accordance with the minutes of settlement and if not what the union has done about it; and
(b) how did the union determine that the assignment to Mr. Zolis of a math class does not breach the minutes of settlement which require that he be assigned an “introductory level business course”.
[2]. All other aspects of the application are dismissed. In my view, there was no requirement in the minutes of settlement that Mr. Zolis be assigned adult courses. Had there been such a requirement, it would have been clearly set out, but there is no such restriction.
[3]. I am also satisfied that the union’s decision not to grieve the statements made by the principal and the fellow teacher was correct and in any event not a violation of section 74 of the Act. While the principal’s comments, if true, were insensitive, they could not in any way constitute a violation of the collective agreement or the Ontario Human Rights Code.
[4]. The comments allegedly made by Mr. Zolis’ colleague are another matter. The Board is unaware of any case where a court or tribunal has found such comments to constitute a violation of human rights laws. However, the law in the area is evolving and I agree that the comments could well be such as to create an unacceptable work environment, particularly if the maker of the comments was aware of the applicant’s health issue. Nevertheless, it is not the union’s role under the Act to police inter-employee relations and accordingly, they were certainly not required (or perhaps even permitted) to file a grievance against one of their own members as suggested by the applicant.
[5]. I am not seized.
“Brian McLean”
for the Board