An arbitrator has dismissed four grievances filed against the City of Toronto by a former employee who claimed violations of the collective agreement between the City and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79.
Arbitrator Lindsay Lawrence determined that none of the worker’s grievances disclosed a prima facie case of a violation of the collective agreement.
Background and allegations
The grievances stemmed from a series of complaints the worker (C.W.) made about his treatment by the City, particularly related to his reemployment as a part-time recreation worker and interactions involving his estranged common-law spouse, who also worked for the City as a Project Manager.
C.W. alleged that the City failed to maintain a harassment-free workplace and improperly handled sensitive personal information.
C.W. was initially employed by the City between November 2003 and October 2019. He was rehired in November 2020. The grievances detail a complex backdrop involving family law proceedings between C.W. and his former partner, who have one child together.
One of the core issues raised by C.W. was that a manager from the City’s Technology Services Division had submitted an affidavit in the family law proceedings indicating that a domestic/intimate partner violence investigation was initiated against him in July 2020. C.W. claimed he was not informed about the nature of this investigation, violating the City’s Domestic/Intimate Partner Violence Policy and the collective agreement.
Arbitration findings
Arbitrator Lawrence’s ruling emphasized that, even if all facts presented by C.W. were accepted as true, they failed to establish the necessary elements to substantiate a breach of the collective agreement. Key points from the ruling include:
Prima Facie Case: Lawrence reiterated that a prima facie case must be capable of establishing the elements necessary to substantiate the alleged violation, even when read liberally. C.W.’s grievances relied heavily on speculative assertions without factual support.
Employment Nexus: The grievances centered on C.W.’s interactions with his former partner, which Lawrence determined were personal rather than professional in nature. “Wherever the line [between home and work]… that nexus is simply not present here,” the arbitrator stated, noting that the couple’s disputes arose from personal interactions within their family law proceedings.
Investigation Protocol: The grievances alleged that the City breached its Investigation Protocol by failing to inform C.W. of the nature of an investigation. However, Lawrence found that this protocol did not apply since C.W. was not employed by the City at the time of the investigation in July 2020.
Harassment and Discrimination: C.W.’s allegations of harassment and discrimination lacked a clear connection to his employment with the City. The grievances described incidents involving his former partner, who worked remotely and was not in a supervisory relationship with C.W.
Data Breach and Privacy: C.W. asserted that his former partner used her City email to handle sensitive information, including a video of their child. Lawrence found no breach of the City’s Acceptable Use of Information Technology Policy, which allows for some personal use of City resources.
Doctoral Research: C.W.’s claim that his doctoral research materials were removed from a private office at his former residence did not demonstrate any employment-related violation. The grievances mentioned academic, not City, employment consequences.
Retaliation Claims: Lawrence dismissed C.W.’s claims that his former partner’s actions, such as contacting the Children’s Aid Society or withdrawing consent to draft court orders, were retaliatory and linked to his grievances. These allegations were deemed speculative.
Access to Employment Information: C.W. speculated that his former partner obtained his disciplinary history from the City. The arbitrator found no evidence to support this and classified it as conjecture.
Conclusion
The arbitrator’s ruling highlights the importance of concrete factual support when alleging breaches of a collective agreement. C.W.’s grievances, rooted in personal disputes with his former partner, failed to meet the stringent requirements for establishing a prima facie case. Consequently, all four grievances were dismissed, and the City of Toronto was absolved of any violations as claimed by C.W.
For more information, see Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 v Toronto (City), 2024 CanLII 71152 (ON LA).
