Bram Herlich

The Association grieved the Employer's unilateral decision to cancel all compressed work week (CWW) arrangements across the Provincial Highways Management Division.

The Employer argued that operational requirements necessitated the change to ensure staff availability.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Employer's blanket prohibition failed to consider the long-standing practice of CWWs, lacked evidence of specific operational difficulties, and failed to assess individual employee circumstances.

The Board concluded the Employer's assessment of operational requirements was arbitrary and unreasonable, violating the collective agreement.

The grievance was allowed.

The parties reached a settlement regarding three grievors in a group grievance.

For the remaining grievors, the Vice-Chair found that the particulars filed did not disclose a prima facie case of any violation of the collective agreement.

The grievance was dismissed with respect to the remaining grievors.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the employer to forthwith produce the accommodation files of three individuals to the Union.

Three grievors sought employer support for external training opportunities relevant to their jobs.

The employer allowed them to attend on paid work time but refused to cover the external training costs ($50 and $113).

The union grieved, arguing the employer improperly exercised its discretion by rigidly applying a policy against paying external training costs.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the collective agreement provided no right to training and the employer's decision was a pure exercise of management rights, unconstrained by the agreement and not subject to review absent bad faith.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the union's grievance as untimely, as it was filed six working days beyond the 30-day limit in the collective agreement.

The union acknowledged the delay but requested an extension of time.

Applying the Becker Milk factors, the Vice-Chair noted the employer conceded it would suffer no prejudice and that the nature of the grievance favoured an extension.

Although the reasons for the delay were not compelling, the short length of the delay and the lack of prejudice justified extending the time limit.

The employer's motion was dismissed.

The employer sought a declaration that the parties had reached a binding settlement of a grievance.

The parties had agreed on monetary terms, and the union forwarded draft minutes of settlement.

The employer did not sign the draft but returned an amended version containing new terms, including a comprehensive release and a confidentiality clause.

The union rejected the amended version.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the new terms proposed by the employer were substantive and controversial, not mere modifications.

Because the employer declined to sign the union's draft and instead proposed new substantive terms, no binding settlement had crystallized.

The employer's request was dismissed.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an order restricting the publication and dissemination of a settlement agreement between the Union and the Employer regarding the use of non-bargaining unit court reporters.

The Union was directed to notify bargaining unit members by posting a specific statement on its website and was prohibited from otherwise distributing the settlement terms or making public comments, except as necessary to explain the terms to members.

The employer brought two preliminary motions in a grievance arbitration concerning the grievor's surplus and layoff.

The first motion sought to dismiss the union's claim of prohibited discrimination under the Human Rights Code for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The second motion sought to restrict the scope of evidence to events occurring after the departure of the grievor's former manager, or alternatively, to exclude evidence of a 2005 assessment report.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the first motion, finding that the pleaded facts did not support an inference that the employer perceived the grievor to have a disability.

On the second motion, the Board applied its three-year 'rule of thumb' for evidentiary scope, restricting evidence to events within three years of the grievance filing, but permitted the 2005 assessment report to be entered as an exhibit without hearing evidence regarding its accuracy or implementation.

The union grieved the employer's decision to award a Graphic Design and Print Operator position to the incumbent rather than the grievor following a rerun of the job competition.

The grievor alleged that the employer failed to consider his 'thank you binder' and improperly mentioned his prior grievance to a referee.

The arbitrator found that the employer's assessment, which scored the incumbent significantly higher than the grievor, was proper.

The arbitrator concluded that the binder was considered and would not have altered the outcome, and that the conversation with the referee had no negative impact on the selection process.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Association grieved the employer's failure to provide insurance coverage for dental implants, arguing that implants fall under the category of 'major restorative services' in Article 35 of the collective agreement.

The employer maintained that the incorporated insurance policy did not cover implants and that Article 35 merely established premium payment and reimbursement levels, rather than expanding coverage.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that while dental implants could be considered a major restorative service, the collective agreement's general reference to such services did not explicitly expand the specific coverage provided in the underlying insurance policy.

The union filed grievances regarding the employer's failure to canvass all classified correctional officers for available escort duty shifts.

The parties asked the Grievance Settlement Board to determine two preliminary questions regarding the application of provincial agreements, without considering local conditions.

The Board held that prior to the implementation of the 'hands-up' system, the employer was obligated to canvass classified correctional officers for escort duty even if they had not indicated their availability, following the precedent in Megahy.

Furthermore, the Board found that the July 2004 Memorandum of Settlement did not immediately implement the hands-up system; rather, the system only became effective once the computerized Provincial Overtime Protocol was fully implemented.

In a grievance arbitration regarding the denial of long term disability benefits, the employer sought a blanket exclusion of the complainant's oral evidence, arguing the matter should be determined solely on the documentary record reviewed by the Joint Benefits Committee.

The Vice-Chair rejected the employer's argument for a blanket prohibition, noting the broad discretion to adopt appropriate procedures under the collective agreement and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

However, to balance fairness and expedition, the Vice-Chair directed the union to provide a detailed statement of the complainant's expected evidence before making a final ruling on whether oral testimony would be necessary.

The union grieved that an on-call inspector was not contacted for an after-hours critical injury report, depriving him of premium pay.

The Spills Action Center contacted the on-call manager instead, who determined no site visit was necessary.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no collective agreement provision was violated and the manager's triage function was consistent with employer policy.

The parties sought clarification regarding the implementation of a prior arbitration award that reinstated the complainant without compensation following a discharge.

The union asked whether the complainant was entitled to accrue continuous service for vacation, compensation option credit days, and pension purposes during the 18-month period between her termination and reinstatement.

The arbitrator clarified that the award was not intended to place the complainant in a more favourable position than an employee on an extended leave of absence without pay under the collective agreement, and answered all questions in the negative.

The Union requested document production in a grievance arbitration.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to produce the requested documents subject to a confidentiality restriction, and directed the Union to provide particulars.

The Board noted it would hear further submissions on confidentiality terms at the next hearing date.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the union to provide the employer with full particulars of its claims by May 16, 2014.

The employer agreed to provide further information upon receipt of the particulars.

The Board also scheduled separate hearing dates for the two grievances.

In a grievance arbitration concerning a disciplinary discharge, the Association asserted that the complainant suffered from a mental health disability that mitigated the culpable conduct.

The employer sought an order for the production of the complainant's medical records prior to the continuation of the hearing.

The Association resisted, arguing that production should be delayed until after the employer presented its case.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the employer's request, ordering the production of specific medical records and clinical notes, finding that the complainant's health had already been put in issue and that early disclosure would serve both parties.

The grievor, a Risk and Assurance Consultant, was discharged for using government IT resources to send personal emails related to her civil lawsuit against the Crown, blind-copying senior government officials, and failing to cooperate with the subsequent investigation.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the grievor's conduct warranted discipline, discharge was an excessive response given her prior disciplinary record of a 10-day suspension.

The Board substituted a 20-day suspension and ordered reinstatement without compensation, rejecting the employer's request for damages in lieu of reinstatement.

The union alleged that the employer breached the terms of a settlement agreement that had been resolved over ten years prior, citing incidents in July and August 2010 and November 2012.

The union sought only declaratory relief.

During a teleconference, the employer conceded the breaches and did not object to the requested relief.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a declaration that the employer breached the settlement terms, with no other relief ordered.

At a scheduled grievance arbitration hearing, one grievance was withdrawn by the union.

For the second grievance, the grievor failed to appear.

The Vice-Chair directed that the grievance would be deemed dismissed unless the union requested it be re-listed within two weeks, accompanied by full particulars explaining the grievor's failure to attend.