Bram Herlich

The union filed a grievance seeking the return or payout of the grievor's excess vacation entitlement from 2021.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance as untimely, noting it was filed over three years after the issue was first raised.

The arbitrator found the union failed to make a case for extending the time limits, as the delay was substantial and the grievor had managed to file and settle other grievances during the same period.

Furthermore, the arbitrator held that even if the grievance were timely, the collective agreement clearly did not permit the carryover of more than one year's vacation entitlement or the payout of unused days.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union requested a further extension of time to file medical information explaining the grievor's failure to attend a scheduled hearing.

The employer opposed the extension.

The arbitrator granted the extension, finding that the potential harm to the grievor of a precipitous deemed dismissal outweighed the negative impact of delay on the employer, as the extension was without prejudice to the employer's position.

The time to file supporting documentation was extended to March 30, 2026.

The union sought to explain the grievor's failure to attend a scheduled hearing, stating she had been hospitalized.

The employer objected to accepting this assertion without supporting medical documentation.

The union requested that the matter be relisted or, alternatively, that further time be provided to obtain the medical documentation, noting difficulties in contacting the grievor.

The arbitrator found that the asserted hospitalization would provide an adequate explanation if proven, and granted an extension to December 23, 2025, for the union to provide the required documentation, failing which the deemed termination would take effect.

The union sought an adjournment of the grievance arbitration hearing after the grievor failed to appear.

The union noted recent difficulties in contacting the grievor and could not explain the absence.

The employer agreed to allow a time-limited opportunity for an explanation.

The arbitrator ruled that the grievance would be dismissed in 30 days unless the union provided details of the reasons for the grievor's failure to attend, subject to the employer's review and potential hearing on the sufficiency of those reasons.

The union filed a grievance alleging violations of the collective agreement.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding the timeliness of the grievance and whether it presented a prima facie breach.

The arbitrator issued a scheduling order directing the union to produce medical documentation and an outline of the grievor's anticipated viva voce evidence, and set a hearing date for the preliminary objections.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled grievance arbitration hearing, and the union was unable to provide an explanation for the absence.

The arbitrator ordered that the grievance be dismissed effective 30 days from the date of the award, unless the union provides sufficient reasons for the grievor's failure to attend in the interim.

Following a case conference call, the Arbitrator issued procedural orders scheduling further hearing dates for the grievance.

The Union was directed to provide a statement of particulars and respond to production requests by a specified date, with the Employer reserving the right to seek dismissal if deadlines are missed.

The union brought a motion seeking the production of medical documents and swipe card access records.

The arbitrator dismissed the request for pre-2013 medical documents, relying on a previous ruling that barred re-litigation of matters settled by a 2013 memorandum of settlement.

The request for post-2013 medical documents and swipe card records was also dismissed, as the employer had already produced all available medical documents and the requested swipe card records were no longer maintained by the third-party security provider.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled continuation of his examination-in-chief at the grievance arbitration hearing.

The union was unable to contact the grievor or provide an explanation for his absence, despite having sent a timely reminder.

The parties agreed to adjourn the hearing.

The arbitrator directed that the grievor be provided an opportunity to explain his absence at the next scheduled hearing date, warning that future unexplained absences could result in the dismissal of the grievances.

The union filed three grievances alleging that the employer engaged in a course of harassment and reprisals against employees who raised safety concerns.

The employer brought preliminary motions to dismiss the first grievance as untimely and to dismiss all grievances for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The arbitrator found the first grievance was filed months late and declined to exercise discretion to extend the time limits, noting the lack of credible reasons for the delay.

However, the arbitrator dismissed the employer's motion regarding no prima facie case, finding that the union's particulars, if accepted as true, were capable of supporting its legal theory of a pattern of harassment and reprisals.

The remaining grievances will proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The union brought a motion for the production of 73 fire investigation reports in the context of a long-standing grievance regarding the grievor's discharge.

The union argued the reports were relevant to whether the employer terminated the grievor in bad faith and continued to act in bad faith by failing to protect his professional reputation, as he was listed as the author on reports finalized after his termination.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the post-termination conduct was not part of the essential character of the discharge grievance and that the requested documents lacked arguable relevance to the issues in dispute.

The union requested an adjournment of the grievance arbitration pending the outcome of a related complaint filed by the grievor at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO).

The union argued that the relationship between it and the grievor was broken, making it impossible to effectively represent him.

The arbitrator denied the adjournment, noting that the arbitration was well-advanced compared to the HRTO proceedings and that it is not the Board's function to monitor or repair relations between a union and its members.

In a remedial claim arising from a prior decision, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to pay a meal allowance expense of $32.60 to each of the 46 grievors.

The decision was issued on a without prejudice and precedent basis and without reasons, pursuant to Article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement.

The parties consented to an order directing the employer to produce an investigation report and related materials to the union.

The arbitrator ordered the production subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including restrictions on copying, electronic distribution, and a requirement to destroy the documents at the conclusion of the proceedings.

The union sought a broad production order in a grievance arbitration involving allegations that the employer failed to abide by a 2013 Memorandum of Settlement.

The employer objected to producing documents pre-dating the settlement but agreed to produce post-settlement documents it could locate.

The arbitrator denied the request for pre-settlement documents, finding them too old and related to issues already fully and finally resolved by the settlement.

The arbitrator also denied the request for post-settlement documents, as the employer had already produced all located documents and could not be compelled to produce documents it no longer possessed.

A dispute arose between the parties regarding the compensation owed to the grievor following his reinstatement pursuant to a prior Grievance Settlement Board decision.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to pay the grievor a further $21,628.64 within 90 days.

The parties agreed to amend a prior order dated July 6, 2021.

The Arbitrator ordered the amendment to allow union counsel to forward a copy of the Investigator's Report to two additional union officials, subject to the conditions set out in the original order.

At the commencement of the hearing, the union sought to call a witness who failed to attend despite being served with a summons.

The arbitrator noted that the summons legally obliged the witness to attend and directed the witness to appear at the reconvened electronic hearing.

The union requested disclosure of documents and recordings associated with two 911 calls.

The parties agreed the third-party information was relevant.

The arbitrator ordered the production of the recordings and documents subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including that they not be disseminated outside the arbitration process and that copies be returned or destroyed at the conclusion of the case.

The employer sought particulars regarding a union grievance alleging violations of overtime equalization.

The arbitrator directed the union to provide complete particulars of its claims, including the identities of the grieving employees, the specific dates and shifts grieved, the manner of the alleged violation, and the number of hours allegedly owed, by December 20, 2022.