Barry Stephens

The union filed a grievance alleging the grievor should have been called in to work overtime on Good Friday to repair a television cable.

An employee on duty made a temporary repair to avoid tension in the unit, and the grievor completed the proper repair upon his return.

The employer argued the overtime provisions did not apply as it was a paid holiday.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the grievance.

The union filed grievances alleging that the grievor should have been called in for escort duty on several dates.

The employer maintained that the grievor was not escort trained and had not indicated his availability through the scheduling system.

Following an expedited mediation-arbitration protocol, the Vice-Chair reviewed the submissions and dismissed the grievances.

The union filed a grievance alleging the grievor was improperly denied ten overtime opportunities.

The employer argued the available overtime did not meet the grievor's restrictions and that some work was assigned at straight time to other employees.

Following an expedited mediation-arbitration protocol, the Vice-Chair dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance after the employer denied the grievor's request for special and compassionate leave.

The grievor missed a 12-hour shift due to a snowstorm and slow snow removal caused by a local strike.

The employer argued that other employees attended work and there was no evidence the grievor made an effort to attend.

Following an expedited mediation-arbitration protocol, the Vice-Chair awarded the grievor six hours of pay.

The grievor alleged the employer failed to respond to her requests for a leave of absence in a timely manner, causing her stress and leading to a medical leave.

The matter proceeded under an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

The Vice-Chair found that the issues raised complex questions of credibility, context, and motivation that could not be adequately canvassed in the expedited process.

The matter was referred to Joint File Review for a full hearing.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor was improperly bypassed for an overtime shift.

The employer's records indicated that the grievor was called and a message was left, but he did not return the call before the shift was offered to another employee.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the grievance based on the submissions and the collective agreement.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to accommodate the grievor regarding a co-worker conflict, a temporary transfer request, and return-to-work arrangements after sick leave.

The parties engaged in an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The Vice-Chair found that conflicting evidence regarding the transfer request and the adequacy of the return-to-work arrangements could not be resolved through mediation-arbitration.

The matter was set down for a hearing under the expedited arbitration process.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor should have been called for an overtime shift as a Registered Nurse (RN) and that the employer improperly hired a Registered Practical Nurse (RPN) to fill the shift.

The employer argued that RNs and RPNs perform substantially the same duties and that it followed its practice of calling Fixed Term Employees who had not yet worked 40 hours in the week.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance following an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor was improperly passed over for a night shift.

The grievor had indicated his availability as a late entry, but the employer's records did not include his name and he was not called, despite the employer contacting another late entry employee below him on the list.

The arbitrator found in favour of the union and awarded the grievor 6 hours of overtime.

The union filed a grievance alleging the grievor was improperly denied overtime.

Under the applicable overtime protocol, employees who failed to submit their availability by the 20th of the month were ineligible for overtime in the following month.

The grievor failed to submit his availability on time for November 2006.

Following an expedited mediation-arbitration process, the Vice-Chair dismissed the grievance, finding no violation of the collective agreement.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor was improperly treated in the workplace.

The matter proceeded under an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

After reviewing the submissions and the collective agreement, the Vice-Chair dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance relating to scheduling.

The parties proceeded under an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

After reviewing the submissions and the collective agreement, the Vice-Chair dismissed the grievance.

The union grieved a five-day suspension imposed on the grievor for insubordination.

The matter proceeded via an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

The Vice-Chair allowed the grievance in part, reducing the discipline to a four-day suspension.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer failed to provide appropriate staffing between 1500 and 1900 hours, following a schedule change prompted by a Ministry of Labour health and safety order.

The employer argued that scheduling and staffing levels are management rights and that it was in full compliance with the order.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the grievances, finding no violation of the collective agreement.

The union filed grievances claiming the employer breached the collective agreement by continuing to use a Compressed Work Week Agreement (CWWA) schedule after it was initially rejected in a ratification vote, seeking overtime pay for hours worked beyond eight hours per day.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the temporary scheduling arrangement did not automatically terminate upon the rejection vote.

The agreement required 90 days' written notice to terminate, which the union did not clearly provide, and the CWWA was ultimately ratified before any such notice period would have expired.

The union brought a motion for non-suit at the close of the employer's case regarding disciplinary issues.

The employer had presented evidence over 47 days concerning allegations that the grievor undermined a shift leader, behaved inappropriately with the public, and demonstrated a discriminatory attitude.

Applying the established principles for non-suit motions, the Vice-Chair found that the employer had presented some evidence that, left unchallenged, might arguably support discipline.

The motion for non-suit was dismissed.

During the arbitration hearing, an issue arose regarding matters outlined in a June 8, 2007 letter to the grievor.

The Vice-Chair ruled that the issues raised in the letter and its enclosures are covered by the arbitration proceedings.

Any ongoing or potential Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy (WDHP) processes regarding those issues are superseded by the arbitration process, and the parties may raise them as part of the arbitration.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement by failing to adjust the grievor's attendance target above the Ministry threshold of 11.5 days per year for the Attendance Support Program.

The union argued that medical reports and the grievor's attendance history supported a higher threshold.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the medical reports did not identify any medical reason why the grievor could not achieve the same attendance thresholds expected of other employees.

The union sought production of documents in a grievance arbitration.

The employer claimed solicitor-client privilege, litigation privilege, and Wigmore privilege over numerous internal communications.

The Vice-Chair reviewed the documents, upholding solicitor-client and litigation privilege for communications involving legal advice or prepared for the dominant purpose of litigation.

However, the Vice-Chair dismissed the employer's claims of Wigmore privilege over internal labour relations and human resources communications, finding that the benefit of resolving disputes based on a fair and open process outweighed any injury to internal communications.

The grievor began testifying at his grievance arbitration but was subsequently hospitalized.

At the continuation of the hearing, the union provided a medical note indicating the grievor suffered from significant mental illness and that stress led to dangerous blood pressure levels.

The grievor requested the hearing continue without his testimony, but the union did not intend to call other witnesses.

The Vice-Chair determined the grievor was medically incapable of continuing his testimony and adjourned the hearing until the union could provide satisfactory medical documentation that the grievor was capable of proceeding.