Annie McKendy

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing.

The union explained that the grievor had a history of mental health challenges and could not engage with the grievance process at the time.

The arbitrator adjourned the matter sine die, ordering the grievor to provide a suitable explanation and supporting medical documentation for her non-attendance by January 5, 2026.

If no explanation is provided, the parties will be invited to make submissions on whether the grievance should be dismissed.

The union filed a grievance claiming the grievor was owed ten hours of unpaid work from October 2021.

The parties participated in an expedited mediation-arbitration process under the collective agreement and requested a bottom-line decision.

The arbitrator found the grievor was entitled to the claimed hours and ordered the employer to pay the grievor for ten hours of work, less applicable deductions and union dues, within thirty days.

The Union brought a request for production of documents, and the Employer brought preliminary motions regarding the scope of four active grievances and the arbitrability of one allegation.

The Arbitrator held that the scope of the grievances must be construed narrowly, limiting the evidence to the specific incidents set out in the grievance forms, given the contrast with a previously settled, broadly drafted grievance.

The Arbitrator found the grievor had standing to arbitrate an incident involving a coworker, as it could constitute harassment directed at the grievor.

Production of documents was ordered only to the extent they fell within the narrowed scope of the grievances, and requests for similar fact evidence and broad communications were denied to prevent a fishing expedition.

The Union requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing for medical reasons, which the Employer opposed due to the grievor's failure to provide particulars and a history of previous adjournments.

The arbitrator granted the adjournment but imposed strict conditions, requiring the grievor to provide medical documentation substantiating his inability to attend and setting a firm deadline for the provision of particulars, failing which the grievance may be dismissed.

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

The grievance alleged that the employer violated the collective agreement, privacy rights, and various policies by investigating an off-duty altercation between an employee and an off-duty police officer at a bar, which included a manager viewing and recording surveillance video of the incident.

Following the release of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in York Region, which emphasized the need for arbitrators to explicitly engage in a Charter analysis where constitutional questions arise, the arbitrator concluded that the grievance could not be dismissed at a preliminary stage.

The motion was dismissed, and the matter was directed to proceed to a full hearing on the merits.

The Union filed grievances seeking compensation for missed meal breaks at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

The parties resolved the issue of compensation for meal breaks missed while on escort duties, but disputed whether the remedy should be retroactive beyond thirty days prior to the grievance filing.

The Arbitrator applied the Board's thirty-day rule, finding no exceptional circumstances to extend the remedy further back.

On the second issue, the Arbitrator found that employees who miss a meal break within the institution are entitled to overtime pay for the thirty minutes worked, pursuant to the collective agreement, regardless of the one hour of straight time already paid by the Employer.

The grievor, a driver responsible for delivering vaccines, was suspended for one day after deliberately leaving vaccines on a loading dock, causing temperature excursions.

The employer also alleged the grievor breached his oath of office by making disparaging comments to public health units.

The arbitrator found the temperature excursions were proven and caused by the grievor's deliberate actions in protest of operational changes.

While the breach of the oath of office was not established due to reliance on hearsay, the one-day suspension was upheld as a reasonable penalty for the misconduct.

The union grieved the employer's failure to automatically convert the grievor's fixed-term position to a regular service position after 18 months.

The employer argued the grievor fell short of the required straight-time hours due to 58 unpaid sick days, which it asserted did not constitute an 'authorized leave of absence' under the collective agreement.

The arbitrator, bound by prior Grievance Settlement Board jurisprudence, held that unpaid absences not covered by an earned credit do not count as authorized leaves of absence for the purpose of conversion.

The grievance was dismissed.

The employer brought preliminary objections seeking to dismiss the grievance for failing to disclose a prima facie case and arguing the union sought to improperly expand the scope of the grievance.

The arbitrator found that the union's allegations regarding a single incident of sexual harassment and the employer's subsequent failure to conduct an appropriate investigation or communicate its results established a prima facie case.

On the issue of scope, the arbitrator held that while the union could not argue a freestanding breach of Article 22.10.3.2 regarding time limits, it could raise arguments about the appropriateness of the investigation and communication of results, as these were inherent in the original grievance citing health and safety and human rights provisions.

The preliminary objections were dismissed in part and the matter was directed to proceed on the merits.

The employer requested that the grievance be dismissed due to the grievor's failure to comply with a prior verbal order to provide particulars regarding the date of the alleged collective agreement violation.

The arbitrator granted the grievor a brief extension to provide the particulars, noting that the prior order did not specify that non-compliance could result in dismissal.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to provide the particulars by a specified date, failing which the grievance would be dismissed.

The employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the scope of evidence the union could adduce concerning a previously settled grievance.

The settlement allowed the grievor to speak to the settled grievance for background purposes only.

The arbitrator held that while the union could not relitigate the underlying facts or establish a course of conduct reaching back to the settled grievance, the grievor could refer to the facts for context.

The union's particulars and investigation reports were admitted to explain how the active grievances referenced the settled incidents, but no findings of fact would be made regarding the settled grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order setting deadlines for the exchange of full production, including medical documentation, between the Union and the Employer in advance of the hearing.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the dispute after the complainant failed to attend a scheduled hearing and failed to comply with a subsequent Board order requiring an explanation for her non-attendance.

The complainant alleged a conflict of interest with her union representation but provided no particulars.

The union requested an adjournment sine die, suggesting underlying issues might be affecting her ability to participate.

The arbitrator granted the employer's motion and dismissed the dispute, finding that disagreement with the choice of union representative is not a reasonable explanation for non-attendance and noting the absence of any medical or other evidence to explain her non-compliance.

The employer brought a motion arguing that the substance of the grievance fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

The grievor alleged improper payment by the employer relating to a Partial Loss of Earnings award from the WSIB, which was paid out while the grievor used annual credits to remain on the employer's payroll.

The arbitrator found that the essential character of the dispute related to the calculation of WSIB benefits, not an error in the employer's payroll.

The grievance was dismissed as the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the WSIB.

The employer brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement regarding three grievances.

During mediation, the union made an offer to resolve the grievances and explicitly left it open.

The employer later accepted the offer and provided draft minutes of settlement.

The union advised that the grievor no longer agreed to the settlement.

The arbitrator found that the union's offer was left open and the employer's acceptance crystallized the agreement, creating a binding settlement from which the union could not withdraw.

The motion was granted and the agreed terms were ordered.

The Union sought an order for the production of documents from the Employer regarding a grievance.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce documents relevant to the creation of the Senior Strategic Advisor position, the decision to terminate the complainant, and any other arguably relevant documents by June 26, 2023.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion arguing the Union had not established a prima facie breach of the collective agreement.

The grievance challenged the Employer's decision to place the Grievor on unpaid leave for failing to comply with a mandatory Covid-19 testing policy, arguing it was unreasonable to deny the Grievor's request to work from an alternate location.

The Arbitrator found that the agreed facts did not support the Union's contention that the decision was unreasonable, and the Union had no evidence to contradict the Employer's rationale.

The grievance was dismissed.

During a mediation-arbitration hearing, the employer requested full particulars from the union regarding two consolidated grievances.

The parties agreed on a deadline for the provision of particulars.

The arbitrator ordered the union to provide full particulars to the employer by the agreed date.

The Union filed three grievances alleging harassment and unreasonable denial of requests for a flexible schedule.

The Employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the allegations were res judicata, untimely, and failed to establish a prima facie case.

The Arbitrator found that the majority of the allegations were barred by res judicata as they overlapped substantially with ten grievances previously dismissed in an April 2022 decision.

The harassment grievance was also found to be untimely, having been filed well outside the 30-day timeframe without grounds for extension.

The remaining allegations regarding in-office lieu days and isolated workplace incidents were dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie breach of the collective agreement.

All three grievances were dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by denying a request for Special and Compassionate Leave due to adverse weather conditions.

The employer denied the leave based on the grievor's proximity to the workplace, the availability of other transportation, and the fact that the office remained open.

The arbitrator found the employer's consideration of these factors reasonable and dismissed the grievance.