Barry Stephens

Following an award reinstating the grievor with full compensation, the union brought a motion for a partial payment of compensation pending the final calculation of the total amount owed.

The employer opposed the motion, arguing it was an improper request for interim relief that failed to follow the Grievance Settlement Board's procedural rules.

The Arbitrator found that the motion was a procedural step in implementing the merits award, not a pre-merits interim relief application.

Balancing the harm to the grievor from ongoing financial loss against the unlikely risk of overpayment, the Arbitrator ordered the employer to make a partial payment of $75,000 plus interest.

In a production dispute regarding the calculation of damages following a successful discharge grievance, the employer sought documentation relating to the grievor's alternate employment during the mitigation period.

The employer requested Records of Employment (ROEs), letters of offer, and documentation regarding the termination of any jobs held during the mitigation period.

The arbitrator ordered the union to produce the ROEs and letters of offer, as they were arguably relevant to the grievor's duty to mitigate.

However, the arbitrator denied the request for termination documentation, finding that litigating the reasons for the grievor's departure from third-party employers would be disproportionate, potentially prejudicial, and inconsistent with the Board's mandate to resolve disputes efficiently.

The Association grieved that an employee's benefit dispute was improperly processed as a civil suit against the insurance administrator rather than through the collective agreement's dispute resolution procedure.

The parties reached a tentative settlement but disagreed on whether the Employer must disclose the civil suit settlement document to the Association.

The Employer argued the document was irrelevant and protected by settlement privilege.

The Arbitrator ordered production, finding the document was central to the grievance and that the 'public good' exception to settlement privilege applied, as the Association had a right to verify the facts of the alleged breach of the collective agreement.

The union sought pre-hearing disclosure of a list of other employees who had been granted masking accommodations by the employer, arguing it was relevant to the grievor's claim of failure to accommodate her medical inability to wear a standard mask.

The employer objected, characterizing the request as a fishing expedition that raised privacy concerns.

The arbitrator applied the West Park test for pre-hearing disclosure and denied the union's request, finding that the union had provided no factual foundation to support an allegation of differential treatment, making the requested information not arguably relevant and lacking a clear nexus to the dispute.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was terminated for allegedly watching a female inmate masturbate while on constant watch and making inappropriate comments, as well as for sending an insubordinate email to his manager regarding a payroll error.

The arbitrator found the employer failed to prove the allegations of sexual misconduct, noting the investigation was flawed and the video evidence corroborated the grievor's version of events.

However, the arbitrator found the grievor's email was insubordinate and warranted discipline.

The grievance was upheld, the termination was set aside, and a 3-day suspension was substituted for the insubordination.

The grievor was reinstated with full compensation.

The employer challenged the union's production request regarding the accommodation of other employees.

The Grievance Settlement Board scheduled a motion to hear the dispute and directed the employer to provide disclosure of undisputed documentation by a specified date.

In a grievance arbitration under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the arbitrator ordered the Union to provide written particulars of material facts and supporting documents to the Employer by August 15, 2024, due to delays.

If the Union fails to comply, the Employer's motion for dismissal will be heard on October 15, 2024.

The employer brought a motion for production of documents following up on a previous order.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to provide consents for access to his Health & Wellness file, clinical notes, prescription records, EI/CPP information, and particulars regarding his disability, accommodation, training, and mitigation of damages.

The employer raised preliminary objections to several grievances filed by the union on behalf of a terminated employee.

The employer argued that grievances relating to a breach of privacy and a delayed Record of Employment (ROE) were inarbitrable because the events occurred after the grievor's termination.

The arbitrator deferred these grievances, noting their arbitrability depends on whether the grievor is reinstated following the hearing of his termination grievance.

The employer also objected to a grievance claiming PTSD injuries, arguing it was untimely and barred by res judicata.

The arbitrator dismissed the PTSD grievance as untimely, finding an extreme delay of over three years without a reasonable explanation.

Finally, the arbitrator declined to strike portions of the union's statement of particulars, noting they are not evidence.

In a grievance arbitration between the Amalgamated Transit Union and Metrolinx, the parties agreed to make best efforts to provide mutual disclosure and particulars by a specified date.

The union agreed to provide the grievor's medical and benefits records, as well as particulars of accommodations not provided.

The employer agreed to provide documents related to its efforts to accommodate the grievor's medical conditions.

The hearing was adjourned to dates to be arranged.

In a job competition grievance, the arbitrator ordered the employer to produce the interview scores of the successful candidates and the interview materials for each grievor, including the ideal answers.

The production was subject to strict confidentiality conditions, limiting use to the mediation or litigation of the grievance and requiring destruction or return of the documents at the conclusion of the proceedings.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was terminated following a severe assault on an inmate during his shift.

The employer alleged the grievor failed to properly perform his duties, including reading a book, using a cell phone in a secure area, failing to follow lockup procedures, and leaving his shift early.

The arbitrator found just cause for discipline regarding the cell phone, reading, and leaving early.

However, the arbitrator found the employer's written lockup and window covering policies were not consistently enforced and could not fully support discipline.

Considering mitigating factors, including the grievor's daughter's accident the previous day and his clean disciplinary record, the arbitrator concluded termination was excessive and substituted a one-year suspension.

At a video conference hearing, an attempt to mediate the dispute was unsuccessful.

The arbitrator determined that opening statements would not be useful due to factual issues and the employer's failure to provide full production of arguably relevant documentation.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to provide full disclosure of all arguably relevant material to the union by September 4, 2020, and scheduled a subsequent video conference to deal with pre-hearing motions.

The employer brought a motion to adjourn a scheduled hearing date in a termination grievance, citing difficulties in preparing a reply witness who was no longer an employee, exacerbated by Covid-19 restrictions.

The union opposed the motion, arguing the grievor had already faced significant delay.

The Arbitrator granted the adjournment, finding no pattern of delay by the employer, accepting the logistical difficulties, and noting that a replacement date was available shortly after the originally scheduled dates, resulting in minimal overall delay.

The union grieved the employer's assignment of a 12-hour shift to a fixed-term employee, which resulted in the fixed-term employee working 84 hours in a two-week period and becoming eligible for four hours of overtime.

The union argued the entire 12-hour shift should have been offered as an overtime opportunity to employees on the overtime list.

The arbitrator found that while the employer has the right to use fixed-term employees to avoid overtime, the overtime opportunity should be measured by the hours of overtime available when the shift was offered.

The employer was ordered to pay four hours of overtime to the next eligible employee on the overtime list.

The union grieved that the employee should have been converted to full-time status sooner under Article 31A15 of the collective agreement.

The union relied on an email from the grievor's supervisor indicating a conversion date.

The employer argued the grievor failed to reach the 18-month threshold due to absences not covered by attendance credits, which broke her service.

The arbitrator agreed with the employer, finding the email was conditional and could not supersede the collective agreement, and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance regarding a job competition for a Financial Officer 2 position.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order terminating the proceedings on the agreed terms, which included the employer screening the grievor in and permitting her to write the pre-interview test for one eligible future competition.

Several correctional officers grieved discipline (including five terminations and two reprimands) imposed after an inmate was beaten to death by his cellmate.

The employer alleged the officers failed to perform fundamental duties, including conducting proper security tours, investigating suspicious noises, and reporting contraband.

The union argued the officers were following long-standing, condoned practices at the institution that deviated from written policies.

The arbitrator found that the employer could not discipline employees for breaching unenforced policies, but held that officers still had a fundamental duty to ensure inmate safety.

The terminations of two officers who failed to respond appropriately to specific markers of risk (an earlier chokehold, contraband, and suspicious noise) were upheld.

The terminations of three other officers were reduced to suspensions or rescinded entirely, as their failures were more closely aligned with the condoned institutional practices.

The reprimands were largely upheld.

In a job competition grievance, the union sought an order for the production of the entire competition file, including applicant names, resumes, score sheets, and interview questions.

The employer did not oppose the request.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to produce the file, directing the union to treat the information confidentially and use it only for the proceeding.

The grievor, an employee of 26 years, sought medical accommodation upon returning to work after cancer surgery.

The parties disputed the employer's ability to accommodate her with a location closer to home or off-peak commuting hours.

Pending the arbitration of the grievance on the merits, the Vice-Chair ordered a temporary interim accommodation allowing the grievor to work from the Richmond Hill office or from home two days a week, and to work non-peak hours on alternating weeks.