Belinda Kirkwood

The Union grieved that the Employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement by paying the grievor at her current rate of pay rather than placing her on the wage grid corresponding to her agreed-upon continuous service date.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the clear and unambiguous language of the settlement agreement expressly preserved the grievor's current conditions of employment, which included her current rate of pay and progression.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the management rights and employment stability clauses of the collective agreement by improperly surplusing the grievor.

The parties agreed to a bottom-line decision without reasons.

The arbitrator found that the grievor was properly surplused and dismissed the grievance.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance after the grievor failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing.

The union had made reasonable efforts to contact the grievor and provide notice of the hearing, but the grievor was uncooperative and did not provide any indication of when she would be available.

The arbitrator declined to exercise the discretion to adjourn the matter, noting that the grievor's conduct prevented the hearing from proceeding and caused prejudice.

The motion was granted and the grievance was dismissed.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the union's grievances relating to compensation for pilots and co-pilots for being required to call into work prior to their scheduled shift.

The employer argued that the parties had settled this issue in two agreements entered into in April 2004, and therefore the Board lacked jurisdiction based on issue estoppel.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the April 2004 agreements settled grievances on a go-forward basis and did not extinguish prior rights.

Furthermore, the issues settled in the agreements were different from the issues before the Board, as they relied on different contracts.

The Grievor, who had returned to work after a stem cell transplant for cancer, was required to attend regular follow-up appointments at the hospital.

The employer denied his request to use short-term sick leave benefits for these absences, arguing he was not 'unable to attend to his duties due to sickness' as required by the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the grievance, finding that the mandatory five-year follow-up protocol was an integral part of the Grievor's initial cancer treatment.

Therefore, the absences qualified for paid sick leave under the collective agreement.

The grievor, a full-time non-rotational security guard, grieved the employer's decision to deny her application for a full-time rotational security guard position.

The employer argued the matter was res judicata due to a previous arbitration decision three years prior that found the grievor lacked the necessary leadership, communication, and judgment skills.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that res judicata did not apply because the grievance concerned a new job posting, but accepted the previous decision's findings regarding the job's requirements.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding the union failed to demonstrate that the grievor had acquired the requisite skills and abilities in the intervening three years to meet the threshold for the position.

The union grieved the employer's failure to appoint the grievor to a Building Maintenance Mechanic position, arguing he was the most senior qualified candidate.

The union brought a motion for production of the successful candidates' personnel files and their interview questions and answers.

The employer opposed, arguing the documents were not relevant.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding the documents were arguably relevant to establishing the threshold qualifications set by the employer and the grievor's own qualifications.

The employer brought a preliminary motion objecting to the Grievance Settlement Board's jurisdiction to award monetary damages to a correctional officer who was assaulted by inmates.

The employer argued that the damages arose from a workplace accident and were exclusively compensable under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).

The Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to award damages for the accident itself, as those were covered by WSIA.

However, the Board found it had jurisdiction to hear claims regarding the employer's conduct after the assault and to award non-monetary remedies for breaches of the collective agreement's health and safety provisions, provided those claims were not compensable under WSIA.

The Board also ruled it had no jurisdiction to award punitive damages.

In a grievance regarding the termination of an employee, the Union brought a preliminary motion alleging the Employer breached the collective agreement by failing to provide advance notice of a meeting and the right to union representation.

The Employer sought production of the Union's training manuals and information regarding the grievor's receipt of Employment Insurance.

The Vice-Chair ordered the exchange of notes and particulars but declined to order the production of training manuals or EI information at this stage, finding them irrelevant or premature.

The grievor, a senior part-time employee at the LCBO, was discharged for cashing four cheques totalling $7,000 without authorization and knowing he had insufficient funds.

The grievor claimed his actions were driven by a gambling addiction and threats from a loan shark.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer had just cause for discharge, as the thefts were premeditated and constituted a serious breach of trust in a retail environment.

The Board declined to mitigate the penalty, finding the grievor lacked credibility, failed to demonstrate genuine remorse, and had not taken meaningful steps toward rehabilitation for his gambling addiction.

The grievor, a long-term employee, applied for the position of Building Code Advisor in three separate job competitions.

He was screened out of the first competition and unsuccessful in the subsequent two.

The union grieved, arguing that the grievor was relatively equal to the successful candidates and should have been awarded the position based on seniority.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while there were flaws in the competitions, such as failing to consider the grievor's personnel file and work samples, the union failed to prove that the grievor met the minimum standard set by the employer or was relatively equal to the successful candidates.

The grievances were dismissed.