Barry Fisher

The Union grieved the Employer's practice of not accruing vacation credits for employees on WSIB during months 4 to 9 of their absence.

The Collective Agreement provided that employees on WSIB for the first three months were on a paid leave of absence and accrued vacation credits, but after three months, they were paid directly by WSIB.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that under the Collective Agreement, employees only earn vacation credits when working or on a paid leave of absence.

The Arbitrator also rejected the Union's human rights argument, holding that it is not discriminatory to differentiate compensation between working employees and non-working employees off due to illness.

The union filed multiple grievances alleging the grievor was improperly denied interviews for Tax Auditor positions and was discriminated against based on age.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the screening criteria and scoring for the competitions, finding that the employer reasonably assessed the grievor's lack of relevant auditing experience compared to other candidates.

The Board found no evidence of age discrimination and dismissed the grievances related to the heard competitions.

The Union brought motions for the production of the grievor's human rights complaint and for a six-month adjournment because the grievor had lost confidence in the system.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss the remaining grievances as abandoned.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to produce the human rights complaint, finding it relevant.

The Board denied the adjournment request, noting that the grievor's lack of faith in the process was not a valid reason.

The Board deferred its decision on the Employer's motion to dismiss until the next hearing date, stating that the remaining grievances would be dismissed as abandoned if the grievor failed to attend and provide an undertaking to participate.

The parties reached a comprehensive settlement of the grievances during mediation.

The grievor failed to send a required letter by the deadline specified in the Memorandum of Settlement.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered that if the grievor complies by a new deadline, the employer must pay the settlement amount less a $100 deduction for the breach.

If the grievor fails to comply by the new deadline, the employer is relieved of its obligation to pay any monies under the settlement.

The union brought a group grievance involving over 80 individual grievors.

After the first two scheduled grievors withdrew their claims just prior to the hearing, the Grievance Settlement Board issued an interim procedural order to ensure an efficient process going forward.

The Board ordered the union to identify the next grievor electing to proceed by April 30, 2007, failing which the remaining claims would be deemed withdrawn.

The grievor, a Fire Training Specialist, claimed overtime pay for teaching pre-scheduled forest fire fighting courses, arguing this constituted 'related duties' to forest fire fighting under the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, holding that duties are only 'related' to fire fighting if they would not have been performed but for the existence of a particular fire.

Since the courses were pre-scheduled regardless of any actual fire, teaching them did not qualify for overtime pay.

The grievors were surplused employees who chose to accept pay in lieu of notice rather than working out their six-month notice period.

They filed grievances claiming they should have been covered by benefits during the notice period under the Employment Standards Act.

The Union subsequently investigated the matter and concluded there was no dispute between the parties to the Collective Agreement.

As a result, the Vice Chair found no jurisdiction over the matter and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor, a long-term employee qualifying for early retirement, grieved that her duties had been reduced and sought an order from the Grievance Settlement Board directing the employer to declare her surplus.

The employer maintained she was performing required work.

The Board dismissed the grievance, holding that it has no jurisdiction to order the employer to issue a surplus notice, nor can an employee grieve the failure to do so.

The grievor claimed he was improperly placed on the pay grid following the settlement of a previous grievance that permanently assigned him to a new position.

He argued he should have been placed at the top of the grid because he had performed the duties for seven years.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that under Article 7.1.2 of the Collective Agreement, an employee receiving a promotion is placed at the lowest level of the new pay grid, subject to a minimum 3% increase.