A City of Toronto employee’s fight against alleged workplace reprisals will move forward to a consultation, following a recent decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).
The worker, M.P., filed two applications: one under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) for alleged reprisals, and another under the Labour Relations Act for unfair representation by her union, CUPE Local 416. Her allegations include serious claims of fraud, voyeurism, and being coerced into disability leave.
According to the reprisal application, M.P. reported various workplace issues, including unsafe practices such as lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the disabling of two-way radio communication. Her filing details a dramatic sequence of events where she was followed by unknown individuals and videotaped by her supervisor after she lodged complaints.
M.P.’s claims extended beyond workplace safety to personal allegations against her husband, whom she accused of bigamy and fraud. These claims, however, were intertwined with her broader allegations of workplace misconduct and reprisal.
Board’s examination and ruling
The ruling addressed two main issues: the duty of fair representation by the union and the alleged reprisals by the City of Toronto.
Duty of Fair Representation Application:
The Board dismissed M.P.’s application for reconsideration of a previous decision which rejected her claim against CUPE Local 416. She had argued that the union failed to support her harassment and reprisal complaints adequately. She alleged that the union advised her to follow the City’s procedures rather than file grievances, which she claimed constituted a breach of their duty of fair representation.
The Board reaffirmed the principles of finality in its decisions, citing the need to balance correcting erroneous decisions with maintaining decision finality. M.P.’s reconsideration request did not meet the stringent criteria required for the Board to re-examine its earlier decision. As the Board noted, “This application for reconsideration raises none of these grounds and therefore must be dismissed.”
Reprisal Application:
Conversely, the reprisal application under the OHSA presented a more complex situation. M.P. claimed that her complaints to the Ministry of Labour and internal reports of workplace violence led to punitive measures by her employer, including being placed on sick leave and denied access to her personnel files.
The City of Toronto argued that M.P.’s sick leave was justified due to her “concerning workplace behaviour” and erratic communications. They maintained that she had not been penalized for her safety complaints, asserting that she remained a City employee and that her leave was a necessary measure pending a medical evaluation.
The OLRB found that M.P.’s application did not clearly establish a prima facie case of reprisal as required under section 50 of the OHSA. The Board emphasized the need for a clear causal link between an employee’s rights under the Act and any adverse actions taken by the employer. However, it recognized the potential novelty of the issue regarding the imposition of sick leave and medical clearance requirements.
Given the lack of detailed particulars from the City regarding M.P.’s placement on sick leave, the Board concluded that further inquiry was necessary. The decision stated, “Unilaterally placing an employee on sick leave and demanding medical clearance to return to work may well be justified in any number of circumstances, however, subject to the evidence, such conduct could conceivably constitute an act of reprisal contrary to the OSHA.”
Next steps
The OLRB has referred the reprisal application for a one-day consultation to further explore whether the City’s actions constituted an unlawful reprisal. This consultation will provide an opportunity to address outstanding issues, including the City’s justification for M.P.’s sick leave and the handling of her workplace safety complaints.
For more information, see Megan Brianne Priaulx v City of Toronto, 2024 CanLII 73518 (ON LRB).
