2540-00-U J.G., Applicant v. Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 101, Responding Party v. C.1[…], Intervenor v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Interested Party.
BEFORE: D. L. Gee, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: Leslie A. Reaume and J.G. on behalf of the applicant; Michael Klug, Shelley Navarroli and Fred Blake on behalf of the responding party; Peter Thorup, Grant Hopcroft and Cindy McNair on behalf of the intervenor; Brian Sheehan on behalf of the interested party.
DECISION OF THE BOARD: September 5, 2001
- This matter is an application pursuant to section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 with respect to which a consultation was held.
Dismissal of Application as Against CUPE National
- At the commencement of the consultation, Canadian Union of Public Employees (“CUPE National”) requested that this matter be dismissed as against it on the basis that there are no allegations set out in the application that pertain to the actions of CUPE National. I ruled orally at the consultation that, having regard to the fact that there were no allegations set out in the application that referred to conduct on the part of CUPE National, the application was dismissed as against it. CUPE National remained at the consultation and made brief submissions. Having regard to my ruling and CUPE National’s participation in this matter, “Canadian Union of Public Employees” is hereby renamed in the style of cause as an interested party.
Notice of Consultation to Stephen Joksas
- Following the consultation, at my request, a Labour Relations Officer contacted the parties to raise the issue of whether Stephen Joksas, whose involvement in this matter is described below, should have received notice of the consultation. I am satisfied, based on the fact that the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 101 (the “union”) takes a position in support of Mr. Joksas’ interests that there was no requirement that Mr. Joksas be given independent notice of the consultation.
Facts
The facts upon which this application is based are set out below only to the extent necessary to explain my determinations.
On February 27, 1999, the applicant, Ms. J.G. was the victim of an aggravated sexual assault committed by Mr. Joksas, a co-worker. The attack took place outside of working hours at the home of Mr. Joksas. The attack was a vicious and sadistic one. Ms. J.G. informed the C.1[…] (the “employer”) of the assault and went off work on medical leave. On March 2, 1999, Mr. Joksas was arrested in the workplace and charged with aggravated sexual assault and unlawful confinement. Mr. Joksas continued to report to work pending his trial. Aside from granting Ms. J.G. a medical leave of absence, no action was taken by the employer in response to the assault. At the time of the assault, Mr. Joksas and Ms. J.G. worked for the employer in separate buildings located approximately half a mile apart. They are both members of the union.
There was considerable rumour and discussion in the workplace about the assault. Speculation, of which the union was aware, was that Ms. J.G. was the victim of the assault.
In November 1999 Mr. Joksas, in anticipation of pleading guilty to the charges and having to be incarcerated for a time, approached the employer and requested a 10 month leave of absence. The request was denied.
On May 1, 2000, Mr. Joksas made a second request for a leave of absence for the purpose of serving his anticipated sentence. The employer was aware of the nature of the crime, the identity of the victim and the purpose for which the leave was being sought. After making such request, Mr. Joksas contacted the union and asked for its assistance in obtaining the leave of absence.
The union asserted in its response filed in this matter, and again orally before me at the consultation, that, when contacted by Mr. Joksas for assistance, it “did not know that J.G. was the victim”. I find this assertion perplexing. The union acknowledges that it knew that Ms. J.G. was absent from the workplace on a medical leave of absence commencing very shortly after the assault and was aware of speculation that Ms. J.G. was the victim of the assault. While the union may not have had first hand confirmation from Ms. J.G. that she was the victim, it certainly had the basis for a reasonable belief that she was the victim. Further, statements contained in the union’s own Investigation Report suggest that the union in fact did know that Ms. J.G. was the victim at the time it assisted Mr. Joksas with obtaining a leave of absence from the employer. The relevant portion of the Investigation Report states as follows:
Joksas made the May 1, 2000 [leave of absence] request on his own behalf; Local 101 officials did not make it. Joksas was in touch with Local 101 at this time, and pleaded for whatever