Adam Beatty

The Union requested that three grievances relating to the assignment and dispatching of mobile station ambassadors be heard together.

The Employer opposed the request, arguing they should be heard consecutively.

The Arbitrator granted the Union's request, finding sufficient overlap in the legal and factual issues, witnesses, and evidence to justify hearing the matters together.

The Arbitrator concluded that proceeding in this manner would be more efficient and would not prejudice the Employer.

The grievor failed to attend a scheduled videoconference hearing before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Union made repeated unsuccessful efforts to contact the grievor.

The Arbitrator adjourned the hearing and directed the grievor to provide detailed reasons for his non-attendance by a specified date, failing which the grievance may be dismissed without further notice.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss seven grievances filed between 2010 and 2016 on the basis of delay and laches.

The grievances had been adjourned sine die in 2017 pending collective bargaining, which concluded in May 2020.

The Union sought to reactivate the grievances in September 2023.

The Arbitrator found that the 3.5-year delay from May 2020 to September 2023 was not unreasonable given the circumstances, including the retirement of counsel and the arbitrator.

The Arbitrator also concluded that the prejudice to the Employer did not outweigh the grievor's interest in having the significant issues heard on the merits.

The motion was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer discriminated against the grievor by forcing her onto an approved unpaid leave of absence due to medical issues.

At the hearing, the parties requested a consent award.

The arbitrator issued the consent award, directing the grievor's placement into the employer's Health Reassignment Program, outlining steps for job search parameters, medical restrictions, and LTIP applications, and scheduling future hearing dates.

The Grievor, a Plant Service Person, was terminated after a baggie containing marijuana flakes and a strong odour of marijuana were discovered in the employer-issued vehicle he had just finished using.

The Employer relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, as no drug test was administered and the baggie's contents were not tested.

The Union grieved the termination, arguing the investigation was flawed and the evidence insufficient.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that on a balance of probabilities, the circumstantial evidence established the Grievor possessed and consumed marijuana at work.

Given the safety-sensitive nature of the position and the Grievor's failure to acknowledge wrongdoing, termination was deemed an appropriate penalty.

The parties met to mediate a settlement of a grievance but were unsuccessful.

The arbitrator issued a procedural direction establishing timelines for the union to provide particulars and production, and for the employer to respond and raise any preliminary objections.

The employer reserved the right to move for dismissal if the union fails to comply with the order.

The grievor, a bus driver, resigned from her employment after being mistakenly informed by the employer that her probationary period was being extended.

She sent a resignation email while in a state of severe emotional distress and later slept for several hours, missing the second half of her split shift.

The next day, she sought to rescind her resignation, but the employer refused.

The arbitrator upheld the grievance, finding that the grievor lacked a continuing objective intent to resign because her actions were heavily influenced by emotional upset caused by the employer's error.

The resignation was deemed invalid.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural direction regarding outstanding grievances filed by the Union on behalf of the grievor.

Following two years of mediation that resolved all other grievances, the grievor's matters remained unresolved.

The Arbitrator directed the grievor to advise the employer by December 5, 2025, whether she intends to make a settlement offer or proceed to a hearing on the merits scheduled for January 2026.

The employer reserved the right to seek dismissal for abuse of process if the matter proceeds.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing without advance notice or explanation.

The arbitrator adjourned the hearing and directed the grievor to provide an explanation and supporting documentation for her non-attendance prior to the next scheduled hearing date, noting that failure to do so could result in the employer seeking dismissal of the grievances for abandonment.

Two correctional officers filed grievances alleging they were bullied and harassed by their sergeant while working in segregation review.

The arbitrator found the grievors' evidence credible and concluded that the sergeant's repeated yelling, demeaning comments, and aggressive behaviour created a toxic work environment.

The conduct was found to be a marked departure from reasonable behaviour with no legitimate workplace purpose, satisfying the definition of workplace harassment under the collective agreement and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The grievances were allowed and the matter remitted to the parties to address remedy.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order establishing a procedural timetable for the continuation of a labour arbitration.

The order set dates for the exchange of particulars, document production, and will-say statements, and scheduled continuation hearing dates for July and August 2025.

The grievor requested an alternative work arrangement (AWA) to work remotely five days a week.

The Employer denied the request, relying on Secretary of Cabinet memoranda that mandated a return to the office for a minimum of three days a week.

The Association grieved the denial, arguing the Employer failed to consider the request in good faith and the operational viability of the AWA, as required by Article 47.1 of the Collective Agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievance, finding that the Employer applied a blanket policy, fettered its managerial discretion, and actively avoided disclosing the true reasons for the denial.

The matter was remitted to the manager for reconsideration in accordance with the Collective Agreement.

The Union grieved the Employer's failure to recognize the National Day of Mourning for Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as a paid holiday under the collective agreements.

The collective agreements provided for paid holidays including 'any special holiday as proclaimed by the Governor General or Lieutenant Governor.' The Arbitrator found that the federal and provincial proclamations and statements requested a day of mourning but did not proclaim a public holiday that became the law of the land.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union brought a motion for the production of documents relating to the Grievor's disability and accommodation, dating back to 2015.

The underlying grievances challenged the Employer's refusal to allow the Grievor to retract her resignation, alleging the Employer failed to properly inquire into her mental health.

The Arbitrator applied the West Park factors and determined that documents from 2019 onwards were arguably relevant, as that was when the accommodation began.

Requests for documents predating 2019 were denied as being too remote and overly broad.

The Employer brought a preliminary objection to strike portions of the Union's particulars, arguing they impermissibly expanded the scope of the grievance.

The original grievance alleged a failure to accommodate medical restrictions regarding a shift change.

The Union's particulars added allegations that the grievor was repeatedly assigned duties beyond her medical restrictions.

The Arbitrator dismissed the Employer's motion, finding that the assigned duties allegations flowed naturally from the broad wording of the grievance, which alleged a general failure to accommodate and disregard of medical documentation.

The Employer raised two preliminary objections to a grievance alleging a failure to accommodate the grievor on the basis of family status.

First, the Employer argued the grievance was barred by a prior Minutes of Settlement.

The Arbitrator dismissed this objection, finding the settlement release was explicitly limited to claims arising up to the date it was signed, whereas the current grievance concerned subsequent accommodation requests.

Second, the Employer argued the Union's particulars regarding denied compassionate care leave improperly expanded the grievance.

The Arbitrator dismissed this objection as well, finding the leave denials were cited as examples of the ongoing failure to accommodate and flowed directly from the core allegations in the grievance.

The employer raised three preliminary objections to a grievance challenging the decision to place a pilot on an unpaid leave of absence for refusing to disclose his COVID-19 vaccination status.

The employer argued the grievance was untimely, impermissibly expanded by the union's particulars, and failed to disclose a prima facie violation of the collective agreement.

The arbitrator dismissed all three objections, finding reasonable grounds to extend the short time limit delay, that the particulars regarding the application of Transport Canada's interim order flowed naturally from the original grievance, and that the unpaid leave decision raised a justiciable issue.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the termination of a correctional officer, the parties requested an order to ensure readiness for the next hearing date after unsuccessful mediation efforts.

The Arbitrator issued a production order directing the Union to provide particulars by January 15, 2024, and both parties to exchange any outstanding production by January 30, 2024.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer failed to meet timelines for providing information required under Letter of Understanding Appendix COR14, resulting in a backlog.

The parties requested a consent award.

The Arbitrator issued the consent award, in which the Employer acknowledged its failure to meet deadlines and agreed to take concrete steps to address the backlog, including providing regular updates and reports to the Union.

The Grievor, a store manager, sought sick leave claiming anxiety due to working during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Employer denied the request, arguing the Grievor intended to use accumulated sick leave to bridge to his retirement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the medical evidence insufficient to establish that the Grievor was unable to perform his duties.

The Board also found the Grievor's testimony lacked credibility and preferred the Employer's evidence that the Grievor had explicitly stated his intention to use sick leave until retirement.