Barry B. Fisher

The grievor, a bus driver with 16 years of service, was terminated after writing and posting a threatening letter to a female co-worker who had left garbage on a bus.

The grievor had a prior disciplinary record, including a recent six-day suspension for insubordination.

The Union argued that termination was excessive and proposed a last chance agreement, citing the grievor's medical history of depression.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the discharge, finding the threat was premeditated, the grievor lacked true remorse, and no medical evidence was led to support a last chance agreement or mitigate the risk of future workplace violence.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the 10 grievances filed by Tax Auditors were classification grievances, over which the Grievance Settlement Board lacks jurisdiction under s. 52.1 of CECBA.

The Union argued they were temporary assignment grievances.

The Vice-Chair reviewed the wording of the grievances and found that 9 of the 10 explicitly sought a classification change and were therefore outside the Board's jurisdiction.

One grievance, which only sought compensation for the time spent performing higher-level duties, was allowed to proceed as a temporary assignment grievance.

The parties previously reached a confidential settlement of two grievances.

The union brought the matter back before the arbitrator, alleging a dispute arising from the implementation of the settlement.

The arbitrator ordered that the grievor be placed on a paid leave of absence, without loss of benefits or seniority, until the employer complies with the memorandum of settlement.

The arbitrator also set out notice requirements for the employer to advise the grievor of his placement and retained jurisdiction over further disputes.

The Union grieved the Ministry's practice of requiring Conservation Officers to agree in advance to take authorized overtime as compensatory time off (CTO) and to carry over unused CTO, as a condition of authorizing the overtime.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that this practice violated the collective agreement, which gives employees the right to choose between overtime pay and CTO.

The Board declared that the Ministry cannot consider an employee's election regarding compensation when deciding whether to authorize overtime, and struck down individual agreements that contradicted the collective agreement.

In a med/arb proceeding under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the Grievance Settlement Board issued an interim award ordering the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care to post three Business Analyst positions in the Systems Officer series within the Assistive Devices Program.

The Employer requested an order dismissing the grievance after the Union failed to comply with a prior interim decision requiring it to provide full particulars, including dates, of alleged discriminatory conduct regarding the enforcement of a travel policy.

The Vice-Chair found that the Union's response did not comply with the order, as it failed to provide dates and detailed information for each allegation.

Concluding that giving the Union more time would make a mockery of the prior order, the Vice-Chair dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer improperly staffed the Ministry by using agency employees to perform bargaining unit work.

In an interim award, the Grievance Settlement Board determined two legal issues.

First, the Board found that agency employees in the Trillium Drug Program were performing work normally performed by bargaining unit members on a regular and seasonal basis.

Second, the Board held that the employer could not legally have this work done by agency employees.

Applying previous jurisprudence, the Board found an implied term in the collective agreement prohibiting the employer from using non-bargaining unit employees to perform bargaining unit work, which extended to contracted-in agency employees.

The Board concluded it had jurisdiction to order the employer to post classified positions and cease using agency staff for seasonal unclassified positions.

The union grieved the termination of a correctional officer who was discharged for allegedly sexually harassing and assaulting a female co-worker.

The case turned primarily on the credibility of the grievor and the complainant.

The arbitrator noted concerns about a settlement agreement between the employer and the complainant that appeared to condition her settlement payment on her testifying at the arbitration.

However, based on inconsistencies in the grievor's testimony and corroborating evidence from third parties regarding the complainant's earlier reports of harassment, the arbitrator found the employer proved the allegations on a balance of probabilities.

The arbitrator concluded that termination was the appropriate penalty for sexual assault upon a co-worker and dismissed the grievance.

The Union filed a group grievance alleging that the Ministry of Finance applied a travel policy in a discriminatory and arbitrary fashion.

The Employer requested particulars of the alleged discriminatory treatment.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an interim decision ordering the Union to provide specific particulars, including the names of individuals affected, dates of occurrences, and details of how the policy was allegedly broken, by April 30, 2002.

The employer raised a preliminary objection seeking to exclude two grievors from a group grievance, arguing that they had settled the same issue in subsequent Minutes of Settlement.

The arbitrator dismissed the objection, noting that the group grievance was filed before the settled individual grievances and was not explicitly listed in the Minutes of Settlement.

The arbitrator held that while the grievors could not be overcompensated, they should not be completely excluded from the group grievance.

The grievor was absent from work for three years due to alleged illness.

The employer required the grievor to allow its medical doctor to speak with her doctor to verify her inability to work and explore accommodation.

The grievor, citing privacy concerns, consistently refused to provide consent and refused to return to work.

The employer terminated her employment for just cause.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, holding that while the grievor had a right to medical privacy, her refusal to allow the employer to verify her medical information gave the employer the right to insist she return to work.

By refusing to return, she breached a fundamental term of employment, justifying her termination.

The grievors alleged they were denied the right to compete for a position after the employer and union settled a previous competition grievance by placing the original grievors in the next available vacancy.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance on the basis that there was no violation of the collective agreement, which the union did not dispute.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 7(3) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act because there was no difference between the parties regarding a collective agreement violation.

The grievors alleged they were denied the right to compete for a position after the employer and union settled a previous competition grievance by placing the original grievors in the next available vacancy.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance on the basis that there was no violation of the collective agreement, which the union did not dispute.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 7(3) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act because there was no difference between the parties regarding a violation of the collective agreement.

The union filed a group grievance claiming standby pay for maintenance employees designated as emergency workers during the 1996 OPS strike.

The employees were not called to work but argued they had to remain ready.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding it was covered by a prior master settlement award that withdrew all grievances requesting premium payments for emergency workers unless a commitment to pay was made.

The employer's letter only committed to premium payments if work was actually performed, which did not occur.

The union filed a group grievance on behalf of former employees of a psychiatric hospital unit, alleging they were denied the right to be surplused and exercise bumping rights upon the unit's privatization.

The parties agreed that this grievance was covered by a comprehensive settlement of all Appendix 9 (Reasonable Accommodation) grievances, which provided a $2,000,000 lump sum but allocated no money to these specific grievors.

As all such grievances were withdrawn under the settlement, this grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer breached a previous Board order requiring the employer to give the grievor at least 21 calendar days' notice of his shifts.

The employer only gave 15 days' notice for a shift on December 26, 1998.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer breached the order.

As a remedy, the Board ordered the employer to pay the grievor $500 for travel expenses incurred to attend the shift, as the grievor resided in Toronto and had to travel to Timmins.

The grievor sought indemnification for legal fees incurred in a workplace-related litigious matter.

The employer objected to the Grievance Settlement Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the collective agreement contained no provision for legal indemnification and that reimbursement was solely at the Deputy Minister's discretion under a Ministry policy.

The Vice Chair dismissed the grievance for lack of jurisdiction, noting the absence of a collective agreement right and the lack of any allegation that the policy was administered in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner.

The grievors filed a grievance alleging that their right to a safe working environment under the collective agreement was infringed because smoking by inmates and staff was permitted at the Whitby Jail.

Subsequent to the filing of the grievance, the employer instituted a no-smoking policy at the facility.

The parties agreed that the issue was moot, though the grievors expressed concerns regarding the smoking policy at the new mega jails where they would likely be transferred upon the closure of the Whitby Jail.

The employer's counsel agreed to pass these concerns to senior staff.

The grievance was dismissed as moot.