Barry B. Fisher

The grievor, a Casual Customer Service Representative with eight years of service at the LCBO, grieved a ten-day suspension and his subsequent termination.

The suspension was issued for two incidents of insubordination and using profane language towards a manager and a co-worker.

The termination followed a culminating incident where the grievor placed unpurchased beer in the staff fridge, contrary to a direct management order.

The arbitrator found that while the grievor did not technically violate the written Staff Purchase Policy, he deliberately disobeyed a lawful and reasonable order regarding the storage of unpurchased product.

Given the grievor's extensive disciplinary record for similar insubordinate conduct and his lack of remorse, the arbitrator concluded that the progressive discipline was appropriate and upheld both the suspension and the termination.

The Union requested an adjournment of the arbitration hearing on the basis that the grievor was medically unable to attend.

On consent of both parties, the arbitrator granted the adjournment, cancelled the scheduled hearing dates, and set a new peremptory date.

The grievor was ordered to provide medical information confirming her inability to attend, failing which the grievance would be dismissed.

Any claim for damages was suspended for the duration of the adjournment.

The union filed a grievance alleging workplace harassment and bad faith by the grievor's manager, as well as a claim for vacation pay.

The vacation pay issue was resolved at mediation for $50.

On the harassment allegations, the arbitrator found that the manager's actions—allocating fewer audit hours than the guideline, requesting a written rationale for an educational course, and disputing a medical note regarding a 5-minute discrepancy—were reasonable exercises of management rights and did not constitute harassment or bad faith.

The grievance was allowed only with respect to the agreed $50 vacation pay.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order in a competition grievance.

The employer was ordered to produce unredacted documents relating to specific candidates, scoring criteria, and performance ratings.

The union was ordered to provide full particulars of the alleged defects in the competition.

At a hearing for a group grievance involving nine grievors, only two attended.

During the hearing, the two attending grievors withdrew from the grievance.

The Arbitrator issued an order directing the Union to consult with the remaining grievors to determine if they intend to continue, requiring their physical presence at future dates, and deeming any grievor who fails to confirm their intention by a specified date to have withdrawn.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing despite receiving proper notice and being warned of the consequences by union counsel.

The union presented no evidence on the remaining issues of accommodation, harassment, and discrimination.

The employer requested that the grievances be dismissed and the grievor's actions be declared an abuse of process.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances due to the lack of evidence but declined to decide whether the grievor's actions constituted an abuse of process.

The parties appeared before the Grievance Settlement Board regarding multiple grievances.

Based on materials and statements, including the grievor's assertion that he could fulfill the duties of a Court Clerk and Registrar during pre-trial proceedings without accommodation other than periodic standing and stretching, the Arbitrator ordered a six-month trial period for pre-trial assignments by consent.

The balance of the grievances were dismissed on consent, with a letter of reprimand replaced by a letter of counsel.

The grievor requested to personally withdraw the balance of her grievance to proceed before the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, citing delays, travel costs, and a desire to represent herself.

The union did not request the withdrawal, and the employer opposed it.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the request, holding that only the union has carriage rights to withdraw a grievance, not an individual grievor.

The Board also noted that the issues already decided were related to the remaining issues, and issued procedural orders to expedite the remainder of the hearing.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued procedural directions in a grievance arbitration.

The Union was ordered to provide full particulars of discrimination, harassment, and health and safety allegations.

The parties were directed to exchange relevant documents.

The grievor was ordered to sign consents for the release of medical records, failing which his claim for damages based on his medical condition would not be considered.

Peremptory hearing dates were set for February 2016.

The union filed a grievance claiming the grievor was owed $125.20 for travel expenses.

The employer agreed to pay the amount, and the grievor subsequently retired.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance as moot.

The grievor, a Ministry of Labour Inspector, was terminated for abusing his authority.

While assisting his sister (a landlord) in a dispute with her tenant, the grievor attempted to gain entry to the tenant's apartment.

Video evidence contradicted the grievor's testimony and confirmed that he flashed his Ministry badge, claimed to have a warrant, and falsely asserted authority to enter the premises.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the grievor's actions constituted a serious abuse of trust justifying his dismissal, and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor, a fixed-term Correctional Officer, was terminated for allegedly smuggling alcohol and cigarettes to an inmate and lying to the investigator.

The employer relied on testimony from an inmate and the discovery of an empty vodka bottle in the grievor's locker.

The grievor denied the smuggling allegations and claimed the bottle had been in his locker for over a year and a half.

The arbitrator found that the grievor's timeline regarding the bottle was impossible based on its manufacturing date, concluding that the grievor lied on a highly material fact during the investigation and at arbitration.

The grievance was dismissed, as the dishonesty alone justified termination.

The union sought rulings on several issues regarding the grievor's reinstatement and compensation.

The arbitrator denied the grievor's claim for credit card interest, utility charges, and costs associated with cashing in an RRSP, finding that the collective agreement's interest provision comprehensively covered the issue.

The arbitrator ruled that the grievor should be reimbursed for any EI late payment penalties incurred by the employer.

Claims regarding premium payments during an interim unassigned period were deferred pending a future ruling on the appropriateness of the grievor's eventual assignment.

The employer was ordered to provide a detailed explanation of the grievor's T4 and retro pay allocation to address tax burden concerns.

The Union filed a grievance regarding the payment of shift premiums for 12.5-hour shifts at the Vanier facility.

The issue was whether employees were entitled to a prorated shift premium for the first and last 15 minutes of their shifts under the collective agreement, which provided a premium 'per hour for all hours worked'.

The Ministry argued that the language required employees to work a full hour to receive the premium.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievance, finding that the phrase 'per hour for all hours worked' clearly includes the concept of pro rata payment for partial hours worked.

The union filed a policy grievance arguing that the employer was estopped from changing its practice regarding pension contributions for full-time employees on short, unpaid, non-statutory leaves.

Previously, employees paid only their portion of the contribution, but following a correction by OMERS, employees were required to pay both their own and the employer's contribution to buy back service.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the union failed to establish the criteria for estoppel.

The board noted that the collective agreement did not address the issue, the employer's past practice was an administrative error based on a misunderstanding of the OMERS plan, and the new rule was not unconscionable as employees could opt out of buying back service.

The Union brought a motion to limit the evidence relating to the reasons for the grievor's discharge to seven weeks from the date he was provided with full reasons for termination.

The grievor was terminated for allegedly falsifying plant logs, with the employer relying on discrepancies between the plant log and security system records going back almost two years.

The Union argued the employer had constructive knowledge of the discrepancies and that it was unfair to expect the grievor to recall specific events from up to 23 months prior.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding the employer acted promptly upon actual knowledge and that the grievor would not be prejudiced as the employer bore the burden of disproving his general explanations for the discrepancies.

The Grievor, a Youth Services Officer, was terminated for allegedly using excessive force and failing to de-escalate a confrontation with a young person who knocked a food tray out of his hands.

The arbitrator found that while the Grievor did not throw the tray or use a headlock, he violated the Use of Force Policy by using force when it was not 'absolutely necessary,' as he could have simply left the room.

Finding termination too severe for a long-service employee with a clean record, the arbitrator substituted a four-week suspension.

However, due to restrictions under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act regarding employees who apply force to residents, the arbitrator ordered reinstatement to a substantially equivalent position without direct resident contact.

The grievor, a Youth Services Officer, was terminated for allegedly punching a restrained youth in the face.

The employer relied on video evidence and an investigator's report.

The arbitrator found the video evidence was inconclusive and consistent with the grievor's explanation that he was grabbing the youth's shoulder.

Eyewitness testimony supported the grievor's version of events.

The employer failed to meet the onus of proving the assault on a balance of probabilities.

The grievance was allowed and the grievor was reinstated with full back pay.

The employer admitted to violating the health and safety provisions of the collective agreement by failing to remove an inmate from the institution within the required timeframe under the 'Threats Against Staff' policy.

The breach was caused by an administrative error, and the grievor suffered no economic loss or undue hardship.

The arbitrator awarded $350 in general damages to reflect the severity of the breach without punishing the employer.

In an interim decision, the Grievance Settlement Board directed the employer to provide calculations for the grievor's potential monetary loss based on a specified formula for a lost interview opportunity.

The Board also granted the union's request to adjourn several hearing dates due to newly retained counsel's scheduling conflicts, despite the employer's objections regarding delay.

Finally, the Board agreed to the parties' request to render a full and final decision on the three grievances already heard before proceeding with the remaining evidence.