Adam Veenendaal

The Discipline Committee determined the penalty and costs for a teacher found guilty of professional misconduct for misusing sick leave.

The member performed at a concert while on sick leave and systematically exhausted his sick time allocations over three academic years.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a 12-month suspension, and coursework on professional ethics.

The Committee also ordered the member to pay $30,000 in costs, finding that his uncooperative and vexatious conduct as a self-represented litigant, including unnecessarily lengthy cross-examinations and repetitive motions, significantly and unjustifiably prolonged the hearing.

The union requested an adjournment after the grievor failed to attend the scheduled video hearing.

The employer opposed the adjournment but acknowledged the Board's procedure of allowing the union an opportunity to determine the reason for non-attendance.

The arbitrator granted a conditional adjournment, requiring the grievor to provide a full and frank explanation for their absence, and reserved the employer's right to renew its motion to dismiss if the explanation is insufficient.

The union referred six grievances to arbitration on behalf of a court registrar.

Two grievances alleged a loss of pay for attending previous GSB hearings; these were dismissed as the grievor was credited with his daily average hours.

Another grievance alleged discrimination and harassment after a manager emailed the grievor to ask if he was returning to work after a hearing concluded early; this was dismissed as frivolous.

The remaining three grievances alleged the employer abused its rights by failing to provide one hour of pre-court preparation time.

The arbitrator found no right to such preparation time under the collective agreement and dismissed the grievances.

The Union sought a production order for the telematics data of six inspectors who were not part of the underground economy project, arguing it was relevant to the grievor's termination for alleged overtime fraud.

The Employer opposed the request, arguing it was a fishing expedition and the documents were not relevant.

The Arbitrator denied the request, finding no factual foundation to support the claim that the other inspectors engaged in similar conduct or that the Employer knew of any such misconduct, distinguishing the case from situations where unequal discipline for known identical misconduct was at issue.

The Grievance Settlement Board held a pre-hearing case management conference call regarding six grievances referred under Article 22.16.1.

The Arbitrator issued directions for the expeditious and informal resolution of the grievances, setting deadlines for the exchange of documents, witness declarations, and a joint book of documents.

The hearing was scheduled for a single day with strict time limits for each party's case and oral evidence.

The parties attempted to settle eight consolidated grievances through mediation but were unsuccessful.

The union undertook to provide particulars in preparation for arbitration but failed to do so by the agreed deadline.

Following a conference call hearing, the arbitrator ordered the union to provide full written particulars of the material facts on which it relies by a specified date, warning that failure to comply could result in the exclusion of evidence or dismissal of the grievances.

The Union grieved the Employer's decision to deny the Grievor a promotion to a permanent full-time Warehouse Worker 3 position.

The collective agreement contained a threshold ability clause where seniority governed provided the applicant was qualified.

The Employer bypassed the Grievor, who was the senior applicant, relying on his recent disciplinary record and performance appraisals which indicated unsatisfactory work productivity.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the Employer's reliance on the Grievor's disciplinary record and productivity metrics to determine he lacked the present ability and qualifications for the promotion was reasonable.

The Union sought production of an Investigation Report and related materials.

On consent of the parties, the Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce the documents subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including restrictions on copying, distribution, and a requirement to destroy the documents at the conclusion of the proceedings.

Following unsuccessful mediation, the parties agreed on timelines for production pursuant to a prior Board order.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order setting out the deadlines for the employer's production, the union's requests for further production, dispute resolution, and the filing of a chart of incidents.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order directing the Employer to produce an Investigation Report, appendices, and non-privileged materials to the Union.

The production was subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including restrictions on copying, forwarding, and use of the documents solely for the purpose of the arbitration.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order directing the employer to produce an Investigation Report and related materials to the union.

The production was made subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including restrictions on copying, sharing, and retaining the documents.

The Board also set deadlines for production, directed the parties to prepare a joint chart of incidents related to the grievor's termination, and scheduled further hearing days for mediation and case management.

The union filed individual grievances on behalf of 14 Court Reporters claiming kilometre rates, travel time, and meal allowance for a period when their workplace was temporarily relocated from Milton to Burlington due to health and safety concerns.

The union relied on travel reports of one grievor showing such payments were made.

The employer clarified that those payments were made because the grievor was required to travel from the Burlington workplace to other locations to perform assigned work, not for commuting from home to the headquarters.

The arbitrator accepted the employer's explanation, finding no violation of the collective agreement, and dismissed the grievances.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued case management directions for two consolidated grievances concerning an eight-day suspension and placement on unauthorized leave without pay for alleged failure to comply with the Ontario Public Service COVID-19 Safe Workplace Directive.

The arbitrator set a schedule for document production, witness notices, and the filing of a joint book of documents, and limited the hearing to one day with specific time allocations for each party.

The union filed a policy grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by temporarily relocating employees to alternate work sites 22 kilometres away due to mould remediation at their permanent headquarters, without providing travel time or meal allowances.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding that under the collective agreement, a change in headquarters and entitlement to associated benefits requires a relocation of at least 40 kilometres.

As the temporary relocation was only 22 kilometres, the asserted facts could not support a violation of the collective agreement.

The employer brought motions to dismiss a grievance alleging termination without just cause and discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, and disability.

The grievor, a Court Service Officer, had been terminated for job abandonment, subsequently reinstated, and then terminated again for abandonment without filing a new grievance.

The arbitrator found that the union's revised particulars did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination on any of the alleged grounds, as there was no evidence the employer knew or ought to have known of the grievor's mental health disability or psoriasis, nor was there evidence of differential treatment based on race or ethnicity.

Consequently, the arbitrator concluded that the grievance was moot because the primary remedy of reinstatement had already been provided and no live controversy remained.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union failed to meet a deadline to provide revised particulars due to difficulties obtaining clear information from the grievor.

The Employer expressed concern about ongoing liability and indicated it would seek to limit liability or move to dismiss the case if particulars were not provided.

The Arbitrator extended the deadline for the Union to provide revised particulars and ordered the grievor to provide a medical note if medical reasons prevented compliance or participation.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award concerning a grievance for an employer's failure to investigate a workplace sexual assault of a 17-year-old employee.

The arbitrator upheld the grievance but awarded only $1,000 in nominal damages, finding the employee suffered no mental or emotional damages and blaming the lack of a formal complaint.

The Divisional Court found the award unreasonable, holding that the arbitrator failed to address the employer's statutory breaches under the Human Rights Code and the Occupational Health and Safety Act, relied on irrelevant considerations, and used stereotypical reasoning regarding the victim's reaction.

The court quashed the decision and directed a new hearing before a different arbitrator.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award finding it breached the collective agreement by transferring work to a different geographic location.

The employer argued the arbitrator unreasonably interpreted the scope of the 'Work of the Bargaining Unit' clause and failed to find that bargaining unit members were deprived of overtime.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable based on its express wording and context.

The Court also found the arbitrator made the requisite factual finding regarding the deprivation of overtime, which was owed deference.