Bram Herlich

The grievance pertains to a written letter of reprimand.

The grievor also received a subsequent 1-day suspension, which is the subject of another grievance.

The parties agreed that if the suspension grievance is referred to arbitration, it will be consolidated with the instant grievance.

The arbitrator encouraged the parties to consider waiving the Step 2 meeting for the suspension grievance and to canvass other outstanding grievances for potential consolidation.

The hearing will continue on May 10, 2023.

The union grieved the employer's application of a 'reasonable and customary' limit to a claim for massage therapy benefits, which resulted in an $8.00 shortfall for the claimant.

The arbitrator held that the collective agreement's specific provisions regarding paramedical services superseded the legacy insurance plan's reasonable and customary limitations.

Consequently, the reasonable and customary limits did not apply to claims for massage services, and the grievance was allowed.

The parties consented to an order extending the deadline for the Union to provide particulars and documents to the Employer.

The Arbitrator ordered the Union to provide the materials by June 17, 2022, and the Employer to provide submissions on any preliminary issues by August 26, 2022.

The Union is precluded from raising new issues or providing further particulars beyond this date, subject to specific exceptions.

The union filed a grievance regarding the number of 'call backs' the grievor, an Occupational Health and Safety Inspector, was entitled to be paid for on a holiday.

The grievor was contacted multiple times and attended three different workplaces.

The arbitrator found that the transition from the second to the third call did not constitute a separate call back because the grievor had not yet left the workplace from the second call.

However, the transition from the third to the fourth call constituted a separate call back because the grievor had completed the third assignment and left the work location before being assigned the fourth.

The grievance was partially granted.

The union alleged the employer breached a 2003 settlement agreement requiring weekly courier delivery of job postings to the grievor.

The arbitrator found the employer had a 96.5% to 99.5% compliance rate over 19 years, delivering approximately 1,000 packages.

The grievor, who has been on long-term disability for nearly 20 years, failed to identify any jobs she would have applied for or any harm suffered from the alleged delivery failures.

The arbitrator dismissed the claims, finding no labour relations purpose in allowing the complaint to proceed, and imposed strict pleading requirements for any future complaints.

The employer requested, with the agreement of the parties, to amend a previous order dated July 6, 2021, to reflect a change in union counsel.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the request, amending the order to substitute the new union counsel for the former counsel, entitling the new counsel to receive copies of a report subject to the conditions of the original order.

The union referred three grievances to arbitration before holding the mandatory Formal Resolution Stage (FRS) meetings required by the collective agreement.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the grievances were improperly advanced.

The arbitrator upheld the objection, finding that the union's refusal to participate in the FRS meetings did not confer the right to unilaterally bypass the grievance procedure.

The arbitrator concluded there was no jurisdiction to hear the grievances as they were improperly advanced.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Employer did not have just cause to terminate the Grievor.

The parties agreed on the amount of lost wages, which the Employer was ordered to pay.

The Arbitrator remained seized of any disputes regarding additional compensation or issues arising from reinstatement, and ordered the Union and Grievor to make a request for production of documents related to the authorship of investigation reports.

The union filed a job competition grievance on behalf of the grievor, arguing she should have been awarded a Welfare Field Worker 2 position instead of the incumbent based on her greater seniority.

The collective agreement provided that seniority governs where candidates are relatively equal in qualifications and ability.

The employer used a scoring system where the grievor scored 66 and the incumbent scored 92.

The arbitrator found that the gap between the grievor's score and the score required to establish relative equality was too large to overcome.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union sought production of an Investigator's Report dated April 16, 2019.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the employer to provide a copy of the report to union counsel, who may forward it to specific local union officials.

The recipients were ordered to maintain strict confidentiality and use the report solely for preparing for the litigation.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled videoconference hearing for his grievance.

After standing the matter down for 30 minutes, the arbitrator dismissed the grievance.

The dismissal is subject to the grievor providing a suitable explanation for his failure to appear within 15 days, failing which the grievance will be deemed dismissed.

The union brought a grievance concerning a job competition.

The arbitrator issued procedural orders directing the employer to produce copies of applications and appraisals for several job competitions, subject to redactions of personal identifying information.

The documents were ordered to be used solely for the present grievances and destroyed at the conclusion of the matter.

In a grievance arbitration under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the Grievance Settlement Board directed the union to provide the employer with full and complete particulars of its case no later than 60 days prior to the next hearing date.

The arbitrator reviewed the parties' compliance with directions set out in a previous order dated September 25, 2020.

The employer confirmed payments related to Walkerton and Windsor were effected or in process, and advised that requested documents dating back 13 to 17 years were no longer available.

The union complied with directions regarding payment dates.

The arbitrator noted the union made every reasonable effort to secure information for allocating settlement funds and must now proceed with the limited information available.

The arbitrator remained seized of any implementation difficulties.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled videoconference hearing for their grievance arbitration.

After standing the matter down for 30 minutes, the grievor still did not appear.

The arbitrator ordered that the grievance be dismissed unless the grievor provides a suitable explanation for the failure to attend within two weeks.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order directing the employer to make payments owing under the parties' agreements in respect of the Windsor and Walkerton Jails.

The employer was also directed to advise the union regarding the existence and production of quarterly reports for several other correctional institutions, and to provide information on unpaid or uncashed payments for specific detention centres.

The union reserved the right to seek general damages in the event of non-compliance.

The parties submitted a specific question regarding the assignment of escort duty for inmates admitted to a hospital.

The employer argued it had a management right to assign escort duty to correctional officers from any institution, particularly one closer to the hospital, for efficiency.

The union argued that escort duty, which often involves overtime, must be assigned to officers from the institution responsible for the inmate's care, custody, and control, in accordance with local overtime protocols.

The arbitrator determined that assigning work pertaining to the care of an institution's inmates to officers of a different institution is inconsistent with the collective agreement's scheme and local overtime protocols.

The arbitrator ruled that the employer is required to assign the escort function to officers from the institution where the inmate is housed.

The union sought a procedural order directing the employer to complete several outstanding tasks related to the assignment of escort duties in correctional institutions.

The parties had previously agreed on procedural and substantive steps to resolve the ongoing litigation.

The arbitrator directed the employer to seek out information regarding outstanding payments, make specific payments for Walkerton, locate quarterly reports for several institutions, and advise the union regarding a specific list, all within 60 days.

The union sought damages for non-tangible losses, including mental distress and injury to dignity, following a previous award that found the employer failed to accommodate the grievor's ergonomic requirements.

The union proposed a range of $15,000 to $35,000, while the employer proposed $10,000 to $20,000.

The arbitrator awarded $15,000, noting that the employer's breach occurred over distinct sub-periods and that the grievor's distress was not exclusively caused by the employer's actions.

Additionally, the arbitrator ruled that the employer was entitled to deduct a prior overpayment from the settlement monies paid to the grievor under a Memorandum of Agreement, rejecting the union's technical and equitable arguments against the deduction.

The union grieved the insurer's decision to terminate the complainant's long-term income protection (LTIP) benefits.

The insurer had determined that the complainant was no longer totally disabled and could return to work.

The arbitrator reviewed extensive medical documentation, including independent medical examinations and reports from treating physicians, which diagnosed the complainant with chronic pain syndrome.

The arbitrator found the complainant to be a credible historian whose subjective reporting of debilitating symptoms was supported by her treating physicians.

The arbitrator concluded that the complainant was unable to perform the essential duties of any occupation for which she was reasonably fitted, and therefore met the definition of total disability for the 'any occupation' period.